Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MUTINY, MALAYA (SENTENCES)

Mr. Bowles: I beg leave to present a Petition on behalf of nearly 8,000 of my constituents in reference to the sentence on Private Stafford, No. 14307, and other Paratroop prisoners sentenced recently.
Petition to lie upon the Table.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I beg leave to present a Petition on behalf of 2,500 residents of Enfield who humbly pray that the sentences on the 243 Paratroopers, now held in Malaya, be remitted.
Petition to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ARDROSSAN GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Cardiff-London

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation the details of the Cardiff to London air services; when they will be started; what rates are to be charged; what are the times and period of flight; and which airports will be used.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): The Cardiff-London service will start as soon as the minimum accommodation

necessary at Llandow Airport is completed, which it is hoped will be in the early spring of 1947. The rates and timetables have not yet been determined, but an initial frequency of two services a day in each direction is envisaged. It is planned to use the airports at Llandow and Northolt.

Mr. Freeman: Would my hon. Friend say whether everything is being done to expedite these services, and will he allow the details to be given as soon as they are available?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. Everything possible is being done. The delay is due entirely to delay in provision of necessary buildings at the airport.

Aeronautical Engineers Association (Recognition)

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he will instruct B.O.A.C. to recognise the Aeronautical Engineers Association.

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. This is a matter entirely for the Corporation.

Colonel Hutchison: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, and in view particularly of the words of the Lord Privy Seal on the Committee stage of the Civil Aviation Bill, I beg to give notice that I will raise the point at the earliest opportunity.

Corporations' Services

Colonel Hutchison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he will issue to the House a monthly statement showing: services in operation by the three corporations; frequency of departures; types of aircraft used; and fares charged.

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. The corporations have not yet issued consolidated timetables, but, in the case of British Overseas Airways Corporation and British European Airways Corporation, these are in active preparation. It will therefore shortly be possible for anyone to get from each of these corporations a single pamphlet giving all information concerning the services run by each.

Major Guy Lloyd: Can the Minister suggest if there is any evidence of frequency of departures of aeroplanes from Scotland?

Liverpool and Manchester— Holland

Colonel Hutchison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation for what reason, under the Air Services Agreement recently concluded with the Netherlands Government, only the Dutch line will have the right to conduct a service between Holland, Manchester and Liverpool.

Mr. Lindgren: The routes specified in the Agreement are not exhaustive, and Article 8 of the Agreement provides for new routes to be added by agreement between the two countries. The full plan of British routes from the United Kingdom to the Continent has not yet been finally decided, but when decisions are reached the necessary modifications to the Schedule of the Agreement will be arranged.

Colonel Hutchison: In view of the fact that this particular route has been specified in favour of Holland, will the Minister watch the interests of this country in order that we may not find ourselves engaged in a unilateral route to the favour of one country, and not to this?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir.

Dakota Aircraft (Accidents)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he is aware of the public concern felt at the number of accidents to Dakota aircraft; and if he is in a position to make a statement on the subject.

Mr. Lindgren: The Dakota is a well-established type of transport aircraft which has been in extensive use throughout the world for many years. The accidents which have occurred in various parts of the world are rightly a matter for concern, but I am satisfied that the United Kingdom Corporations are justified in their confidence in this aircraft. So far as civil aviation is concerned, although there have been three accidents this year to Dakota aircraft operated by the United Kingdom Corporations, no passengers were killed but one passenger unfortunately broke a leg.

Mr. Gammans: Can the Parliamentary Secretary assure the House that we have enough spare parts for these aircraft, which are made in America, and can he say whether or not any report is to be issued by the Ministry on these accidents?

Mr. Lindgren: The latter part of the question does not arise, because there have not been the accidents. So far as the first part of the question is concerned, such supplies as are available are being obtained. They are not in supply to the extent that would be desired, but every possibility to secure what supplies are available is taken.

Mr. Bowles: Now that we have got back to peace will any inquiries in future into any civil aviation accidents for which any of the corporations are responsible, be held in public?

Mr. Lindgren: I should need notice of that question. There are Statutory Rules and Regulations governing them.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Parliamentary Secretary try to come to some arrangement with the American Government to purchase some of the surplus Dakota aircraft stored at Carlisle, so that there will be sufficient spares to meet requirements?

Mr. Lindgren: That would not solve the matter altogether, but it is under active consideration by the Ministry of Supply in conjunction with the Ministry of Civil Aviation.

Mr. John Lewis: In cases where accidents have taken place shortly after take off, has my hon. Friend any evidence to substantiate the allegation that the accidents have been caused by overloading?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir.

Mr. Scollan: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the services in the various airports? My reason for asking is that I am not satisfied and I travel by air.

Mr. Lindgren: I hope that one will never be satisfied because perfection will perhaps never be reached, but everything possible is being done to secure as high a standard of maintenance as is humanly possible.

Rawcliffe Aerodrome

Mr. Turton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he has yet reached a decision on the future of the Rawcliffe aerodrome.

Mr. Lindgren: No final decision has yet been reached but this aerodrome will probably be required for scheduled air services.

Mr. Turton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the lack of decision by his predecessor in this matter has sterilised housing in this area for more than 12 months, and will he, now that there has been a clean sweep in his Department, accelerate these decisions?

Mr. Lindgren: In view of the previous discussions that arose on this matter I have gone into it very carefully in the short time at my disposal, and I am satisfied that the authorities concerned would be wise not to bring houses within reach of the flightway—

Hon. Members: Runways?

Mr. Lindgren: —that is the approach to the runways—they will be well advised not to proceed with housing schemes which interfere with the port.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA (FOOD SHORTAGE)

Mr. Rees-Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to deal with the grave shortage of food in the Malayan Union and Singapore.

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the hardship which is being caused in Malaya by the reduction of the rice ration; and if he is in a position to make a statement on the subject.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): The shortage is not one of food generally but mainly of imported rice and flour. The recent reduction in the rice rations has undoubtedly caused serious hardship and although there has been a small compensating increase in the flour ration, I fully realise that the combined cereals rations are very low. With the close cooperation of my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Food and Transport, I am making every effort to see that as much rice and flour as can be made available in the existing supply position is shipped to these territories. I may add that everything possible is being done by the Governors concerned to ensure the production of the maximum amount of foodstuffs locally.

Mr. Gammans: Is the Secretary of State not aware that Malaya expected to get a large quantity of rice from Siam, and will

he say whether that rice is likely to be forthcoming, and when the ration of rice in the country can probably be raised?

Mr. Creech Jones: There are special difficulties in regard to the ration in Siam, but I am glad to say that we hope that supplies which were to have gone to China will now be diverted to Malaya.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Does the Secretary of State remember the reply given in this House about five months ago that a contract was signed by Lord Killearn for about 1,500,000 tons of surplus rice in Siam and that there was to be a splendid flow to Malaya? Will he explain why, if there are nearly 1,500,000 tons surplus in Siam, the Government are unable to move it less than 500 miles, to a country where there is severe famine?

Mr. Creech Jones: It is impossible to go into the details of the difficulties in regard to the transportation of rice from Siam to Malaya, but everything possible is being done to get as big a proportion of what is available in Siam into Malaya.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA (BANANA TRADE)

Mr. Rees-Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the concern felt by banana growers and exporters in Jamaica at the possibility of His Majesty's Government's guarantee to buy all Jamaican bananas terminating at the end of the year and of their desire to have an extension for another two years; and whether he will give the desired guarantee for this further period.

Mr. Creech Jones: The guarantee to which my hon. Friend refers was a wartime measure instituted to maintain the banana plantations at a time when exports were impossible. Exports have now been resumed and the necessity for this form of assistance to producers no longer exists. I am, however, considering with the Governor of Jamaica an extension of the wartime arrangements whereby all bananas are bought and marketed by the Jamaica Government.

Mr. Skinnard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this statement of policy is a matter of some urgency, in view of the fact that thousands of small cultivators rely on bananas as their only cash crop?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir, discussions are being pursued.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Do shipping facilities exist to bring the full Jamaica crop over here?

Mr. Creech Jones: At the moment, yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Sir Peter Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are to be the composition and functions of the recently appointed Colonial Economic and Development Council; what are its terms of reference and to whom the Council is to be responsible.

Mr. Creech Jones: The members of the Council so far appointed are Lord Portal (of Laverstoke) as chairman, Mr. J. Ben-stead, Sir Bernard Bourdillon, Sir Graham Cunningham, Sir William Goodenough and Sir Drummond Shiels. I have one or two other appointments in contemplation and hope to announce their names shortly.
The Council's terms of reference are:
To advise the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the framing and subsequent review of plans for economic and social development in the Colonial Empire and on questions of general economic and financial policy.
The functions of the Council are shown by these terms of reference. It will be responsible to me.

Major Cecil Poole: Why does my right hon. Friend assume that the Chairman of the Great Western Railway, the Chairman of Barclay's Bank and the Chairman of the Shipbuilding Advisory Council are the people most likely to advise the Government as to a correct solution of the problem?

Mr. Creech Jones: I anticipated that criticism, and I think we may be assured that Lord Portal is most anxious to render the best possible service he can.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is any consideration being given by this Council to the aspect of defence?

Mr. Creech Jones: That is not within the field of consideration of this particular Council.

Sir P. Macdonald: Can we be told whether these members are permanent

members, how often they are to meet and if they are to serve in an advisory capacity?

Mr. Creech Jones: Their powers are advisory, they are not permanent employees, and the Council will meet as frequently as business demands.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORT APPLICATIONS

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that applications for passports are treated as private and only disclosed to public authorities concerned.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): Passport applications form part of the official records of the Passport Office, and the information contained in them is regarded as confidential and is not disclosed to persons other than public authorities concerned except at the request of a competent court. Inquiries by near relatives, however, are dealt with on their merits.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the Minister explain the propriety of the last part of his answer? Surely, it is quite improper for an application of this kind to be disclosed to any private person whatsoever?

Mr. McNeil: A wife looking for a missing husband—not in every case necessarily wilful desertion—or a parent looking for missing children could, and in fact frequently does, apply to the police for the information which they then obtain from us, so that as a matter of convenience, where we are satisfied about relationship, we sometimes give the information, but of course it is confined to saying whether or not a passport has been issued.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Passport Office began the practice of asking, in some cases, married men seeking passports, to supply letters from their wives about provision for their maintenance.

Mr. McNeil: I am not in a position to give the precise date upon which the practice began, but the records of the Passport Office show that when the subject was raised in this House on 7th May, 1930, the practice was already established and had been followed for several years.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUMANIA

Personal Attacks

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has regarding the recent attack on M. Pinescu and the murder of M. Mihai; and, in view of the guarantee contained in the draft treaty with Rumania that Rumania shall take all measures necessary to secure to all persons under Rumanian jurisdiction the fundamental freedoms, what steps he proposes to take.

Mr. McNeil: As the answer to the Question is necessarily long, I will, with the hon. Gentleman's consent, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hogg: In congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on his well deserved promotion, may I ask if he will answer these two specific points: Is there any truth in the allegation that the police in these dastardly and wicked murderous attempts on people's lives were actually ordered to collaborate in the assassination; and, second, have His Majesty's Government taken any steps to express their dissatisfaction at the want of safety for human life in Rumania at present?

Mr. McNeil: I greatly regret that there is, in my opinion, evidence that the police connived in this exceedingly distasteful incident. Secondly, my right hon. Friend spoke very bluntly indeed to the Rumanian Foreign Secretary on this subject while in Paris some three weeks ago.

Following is the answer:

According to the reports which I have received, the incident in question took place at a meeting of a National Peasant Party County Committee on 9th August in the village of Pitesti. The Minister of the Interior had been informed by Mr. Penescu, as Secretary-General of the National Peasant Party, that this meeting would take place and had promised to take measures for the maintenance of order. Despite this assurance lorryloads of Communist supporters carrying firearms and metal clubs were permitted to enter the village and to assault members of the committee. Mr. Mihai, the Secretary of the county organisation attempted to escape through a window and was shot dead in doing so. While attempting to

follow him Mr. Penescu fractured his leg and was then beaten about the head and left for dead after losing consciousness. There is evidence. I regret to have to state, that the police had received orders to collaborate in this assassination. One other member of the Peasant Party was killed.

Since the draft treaty of peace with Rumania is not yet in force the provisions of the article designed to secure fundamental freedom to the people of Rumania are not yet binding on the Government of that country. Nevertheless, His Majesty's Government have for long been dissatisfied with the absence of political freedom in Rumania and have drawn the attention of the Rumanian Government to this in the notes presented by the United Kingdom Political Representative in Bucharest on 27th May and on 14th June. On 7th September my right hon. Friend received the Rumanian Minister for Foreign Affairs in Paris and informed him in blunt terms that His Majesty's Government were dissatisfied at the considerable number of incidents of this kind taking place in Rumania with the connivance of the Rumanian Government and in contravention of the undertaking to assure liberty of speech and freedom of association given by the Prime Minister of Rumania to His Majesty's Government in January of this year.

British Insurance Companies (Interests)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he has tabled for inclusion in the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania for the protection of the interests of British insurance companies in that country.

Mr. McNeil: The proposals of my right hon. Friend were set out as Annexe 4B to the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania. They have since been amended by the Balkan Economic Commission at Paris. I will with permission circulate the amended terms in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Warbey: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is true, as reported in "The Times" and elsewhere, that the British proposal was that foreign insurance companies should be accorded exactly the same right to remain there in future as they had before the war?

Mr. McNeil: My recollection is that the provisions provided that the British companies should resume their portfolios, and that there was a second clause dealing with the amount of the financial guarantee necessary. There was also a clause relating to the date. Beyond that, there were no other provisions.

Mr. Hogg: Is it not remarkable that this and the two previous Questions have been designed for the diminution of British prestige and prosperity in three different parts of the world?

Following are the amended terms:

"1. The Rumanian Government shall grant every facility to Insurers who are nationals of the United Nations to resume possession of their former portfolios in Rumania.

"2. Should an Insurer, being a national of any of the United Nations wish to resume his professional activities in Rumania, and should the value of guarantee deposits or reserves required for the operation of Insurance concerns in Rumania be found to have decreased as a result of the loss or depreciation of the securities which constituted such deposits or reserves, the Rumanian Government undertakes to accept such securities as still remain (for a period of eighteen months) as fulfilling the legal requirements in respect of deposits and reserves."

A United Kingdom proposal to extend this period to three years was also carried.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (GERMAN PROPERTY)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make a statement on the intentions of His Majesty's Government with regard to German property in the British zone of Austria.

Mr. McNeil: The ultimate disposal of German property in the British, French and United States zones of Austria is a matter for agreement between the Powers concerned, and is not for settlement by His Majesty's Government alone. The present position of German property in the British zone of Austria is that the administration of such property is being passed over to the Federal Ministry for Property Control and Economic Planning. This step, which is in accordance with the provisions of the Revised Control Agree-

ment, would have been taken earlier were it not for the fact that until recently the Austrian Government had no legislation under which public administrators could be appointed or controlled. The Austrian Government is prohibited from disposing of such property except with the sanction of the British occupying authorities.

Mr. Freeman: Can the Minister say whether that arrangement is the same as that which has been concluded by the American Government?

Mr. McNeil: I should prefer to say that rather similar arrangements have taken place in the American and French zones.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (MURDERED MILITARY POLICEMEN)

Mr. Molson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make a statement regarding the murder, by an Egyptian mob, of two British soldiers in Alexandria on 4th March; and whether the Egyptian Government have tendered an apology and offered compensation to the murdered men's dependants.

Mr. McNeil: As indicated in the statement which I made on 3rd June, His Majesty's Government are anxious to avoid a public argument with the Egyptian Prime Minister about these regrettable events. The Egyptian Prime Minister has, however, re-affirmed in writing that the Egyptian Government are unable to accept responsibility for the deaths of the two military policemen concerned. His Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo has therefore been authorised to address a further note to the Egyptian Prime Minister refuting all suggestions that the conduct of the deceased men was in any way blameworthy and proposing that our claim for compensation on their behalf should be referred to arbitration.

Oral Answers to Questions — WARSAW CELEBRATIONS (PRESS REPRESENTATION)

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the British Press was not represented in Warsaw at the anniversary celebrations of the national liberation.

Mr. McNeil: This is not a matter over which my right hon. Friend has any power.

Mr. Thomas: Since the Press attache at Warsaw is connected with this matter, does the Minister not agree that that section of our representation comes within the purview of his office?

Mr. McNeil: I am not very clear what my hon. Friend means. The Press attache at Warsaw was present. The only British Press correspondent of whom I have any knowledge was also present. The matter of invitation would be, so far as it was exclusive, a matter for the municipality of Warsaw. As I understand it, the celebration was quite public and forward notice had been given, but it would not rest with the British Embassy or any member of that Embassy to issue invitations.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY (ENTRY PERMITS)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that in the form of application for a visit to Hungary there is a question as to ethnical origin; what is the meaning of this question; and what is its purpose.

Mr. McNeil: I do not know the purpose of this question relating to the ethnical origin of the applicant. It is inserted in the application form to comply with the regulations of the governing authorities who control the issue of entry permits to Hungary. The governing authority in this case is, of course, the Soviet.

Mr. Piratin: Does the right hon. Gentleman tell the House, therefore, that he takes instructions from a foreign Government without knowing their purpose?

Mr. McNeil: Yes, Sir. We are so anxious—and I say this most sincerely— to collaborate with our Allies, that in these administrative matters it would be unreasonable and unfriendly if we questioned every minor directive.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does my right hon. Friend think that any more harm would be done to international relations if some inquiry was directed to show what is the reason for so obviously unreasonable a request?

Mr. McNeil: I would not care to say it was so unreasonable until I know the facts. Under pressure from my hon. Friend, who is an authority on this subject and who is extremely reasonable, I will find out the facts, if I can, and communicate with him.

Major Tufton Beamish: Apart from the fact that this Question seems to be unnecessary and undesirable, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it places those who either do not know their origin or who do not want others to know it in a very difficult position?

Mr. McNeil: I thought we were talking about ethnical and not political origin.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY (DISPLACED PERSONS)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will take steps to ensure that in any peace settlement made between Italy and the United Nations provision will be made so that the many displaced persons of Yugoslav, Ukrainian, Polish and other nationalities at present in Italy will not be forced back against their will to their countries of origin in exchange for the many Italians at present detained by the Yugoslav Government.

Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Government have made it clear at more than one international conference that they are firmly opposed to any forcible repatriation of bona fide displaced persons and refugees. We are at the moment examining the possibility of ensuring that no forcible repatriation of bona fide personnel should take place after the withdrawal of Allied control from Italy.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend able yet to give any indication as to what sort of assurance there will be? Will it be under some continuation of U.N.R.R.A., or what, because these poor people are very anxious about what is to happen to them?

Mr. McNeil: I am not anxious to be drawn into a detailed discussion of what our efforts will amount to, but I say to my hon. Friend that I am as aware and as concerned as he is and that I will try to secure that there is some international backing for these poor people in Italy.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I think the Minister has used the expression "bona fide personnel." Will he define the sort of people who are not bona fide personnel and who may be liable to repatriation?

Mr. McNeil: I should say I was trying to exclude those people against whom a prima facie case can be shown—that is, that they have committed an offence.

Mr. Eden: Does the Minister not agree that the only satisfactory way of dealing with this is to include it in some form in the international agreement which deals with this matter between the Allied Powers?

Mr. McNeil: I am afraid it is rather late now to consider adding anything to what already exists in the draft Treaty.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, on or about 27th September, British military authorities at Naples handed over a number of Croatian displaced persons for forcible repatriation to Yugoslavia; and whether this action, which is contrary to all undertakings given regarding forcible repatriation, had his approval.

Mr. McNeil: I am not aware that action of the kind described has been taken by the British military authorities at Naples, but I have caused immediate inquiries to be made.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that I have private communications from Italy indicating that the British military authorities are committing this villainy, and if he will give an assurance to this House that instructions will be given to them to stop it? Further, will he make some sort of provision so that persons, before forcible repatriation, are given some opportunity of appearing before an independent body with their own advocates, instead of being left to the chancy intervention of the Foreign Office?

Mr. McNeil: I would like to see the second Question on the Order Paper. As to the first, His Majesty's Government will not be a party to the forcible repatriation of people against whom no offence is known. Generally, we will not permit the forcible repatriation of people who are displaced refugees.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that I hold here in my hand a paper in which a commandant of a camp, when people complained that they were forcibly repatriated without blankets, said: "In heaven you will not need them, and in hell it is too hot."

Mr. Scollan: What does the officer do in a case like that? I hope they will not repeat what they have already done with the Poles in Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — ICELAND (AMERICAN AIR BASE)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has made to the Icelandic Government regarding their attitude towards the United States Government's proposal for a transit military air base at Keflavik.

Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Minister in Iceland was instructed to let it be known to the Icelandic authorities that my right hon. Friend hoped that they would not withhold unreasonably from the United States Government facilities necessary for communication with the United States forces occupying Germany.

Mr. Warbey: Is it not the case that these representations were made at the time when the matter was under discussion in the Icelandic Parliament, and does not this constitute an example of unwarranted interference on behalf of a third party in the internal affairs of a sovereign State?

Mr. McNeil: I reject most fiercely any suggestion that we were doing anything derogatory to Icelandic sovereignty. I repeat that our relations with that Government, I am happy to say, are most friendly, and I would not accept the word "representations" used by my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE (BRITISH TROOPS)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to announce a time-table for the withdrawal of the British troops from Greece.

Mr. McNeil: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin).

Mr. Warbey: In view of the fact that that reply indicated that British troops are to remain in Greece for the time being, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that they will not, in any circumstances, be used to support or assist the Greek Government in its vindictive persecution of political opponents?

Mr. McNeil: I think that is very reasonable, and I do give that assurance, but I repeat that British troops never have been, and never will be, used for that purpose.

Mr. Cocks: Does not their very presence, with arms, in Greece constitute an act of passive—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is not asking a question, but is advancing an argument.

Mr. Warbey: In the event of disturbances in Greece, does not the Minister think it desirable to withdraw them?

Mr. McNeil: I always thought it undesirable that British troops should be involved. I also think that civil disturbance is highly undesirable.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLISH ARMED FORCES (RESETTLEMENT)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he proposes to take in respect of men at present serving in the Polish Armed Forces attached to the British Army who are unwilling to sign a two years agreement for service in the Resettlement Corps.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): The disposal of men who wish neither to return to Poland nor to join the Polish Resettlement Corps is still under consideration, but it is clear that they cannot expect any further help from His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister say when he expects a statement to be made in regard to the number of returned Polish soldiers, which, in view of the answer given yesterday, is likely to be a very high one?

Mr. Mayhew: I will certainly consider issuing a statement. The matter is under consideration, and we hope it will be settled very shortly.

Mr. Warbey: Can the Minister say whether discussions are taking place with the Polish Government with a view to securing an agreed solution of this problem?

Mr. Mayhew: I am not sure that that will prove necessary, but, certainly, we will bear it in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

S. G. Brown, Limited, Acton

Mr. Viant: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will now say whether Messrs. S. G. Brown, Limited, of Victoria Road, Acton, W.3, will continue to be administered by His Majesty's Government.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): Yes, Sir. As stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) on 2nd August, His Majesty's Government have decided that this company shall remain in Government ownership.

M/T Drivers, W.R.N.S. (Release)

Mr. Collins: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will explain the reasons for the delay in demobilisation of the M/T section of the W.R.N.S.; and when it is hoped that this section will be demobilised with their groups.

Mr. Dugdale: There is no permanent delay in the demobilisation of W.R.N.S. M/T drivers. This category reached Age and Service Group 61 in Class A on 19th August, 1946. Although there have been no release from the category since that date, this is a temporary adjustment measure such as has occurred in other categories from time to time and releases will be resumed as soon as possible. Releases of M/T drivers are up to the average standard for the W.R.N.S.

CROWN SERVANTS (ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES)

Mr. Hopkin Morris: asked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the observations of the House of Lords in the case of Adams v. Naylor; whether he is aware that it will now be impossible in many cases for


Government Departments to follow the practice of nominating dummy defendants and paying such damages as may be awarded against such defendants; and whether, therefore, His Majesty's Government will now proceed to the early introduction of the Crown Proceedings Bill.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on 8th October. I desire to add that the question by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Morris) does not accurately describe the practice of the Crown in these matters.

NUREMBERG TRIALS (BRITISH WITNESSES)

Major Bruce: asked the Attorney-General (1) whether he will state the number of British nationals whose evidence before the International Military Tribunal was requested but who declined to give evidence, distinguishing between those requested by the prosecution and those requested by the defence.
(2) whether he will state the number of British nationals who gave evidence for prosecution and defence, respectively, at the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, distinguishing between evidence provided verbally and that furnished in writing.

The Attorney-General: I regret that, owing to the transit of documents and records from Nuremberg to London, the particulars for which the hon. and gallant Member asks in these Questions are not immediately available. I will, however, communicate with the hon. and gallant Member as soon as they are obtained.

ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Attorney-General what action he is proposing to take on the Final Report of the Departmental Committee on Alternative Remedies.

The Attorney-General: I have nothing yet to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) on 31st July last. The subject is still under consideration.

Mr. Renton: Will the Attorney-General bear in mind that, if nothing is done before the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) and National Insurance Acts come into operation, the present confusion in the law will be worse confounded, and will he consider introducing legislation well before the appointed day?

The Attorney-General: We have that point well in mind.

ROYAL AIR FORCE

Skilled Training (Recruits)

Mr. Blyton: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that recruits are not trained for skilled trades unless they sign for a, long term; that this is resulting in the demobilisation groups among tradesmen in the R.A.F. being behind schedule and is causing dissatisfaction among tradesmen; why recruits are thus refused skilled tradesmen's courses when servicemen's release is dependent on replacements; and if he will give the number of recruits trained to replace riggers as compared with the number released.

Lieut.-Commander dark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent the delay in releasing airmen who are mustered in the electrical trades is due to the fact that no recruits are being trained as electricians unless they agree to join the R.A.F. as Regulars; and whether he will modify his policy in this matter.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): I am glad to assure the hon. Members that, except for a few trades in which we have enough men, we are enlisting anyone with suitable qualifications, whether he is a National Service entrant or a volunteer. If, however, the hon. Members have reason to think that suitable recruits have been, in fact, refused in any trade where release is now delayed, I will be grateful if they will send me any information they may have.
In the trades which my hon. Friend describes as riggers, 57,400 men have been released, while 8,900 new entrants have been trained. For them, as for electricians, release is delayed, not because suitable recruits have been refused, but because we are short of men to meet our needs.

Mr. Blyton: Is the Minister not prepared to give the same length of training now as operated during the war, so as to accelerate the release of these particular tradesmen?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have said that, except in a very few trades where we have enough men, recruits are being taken for a short term. If that is not clear, perhaps my hon. Friend and I might discuss it together.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Does the Minister not realise that there is considerable dissatisfaction in sections of the Royal Air Force on this matter?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, I realise that all too well, but I am afraid that it is due to a shortage of men.

Recruiting Progress

Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for Air what progress has been made in the enlistment of recruits in the R.A.F.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The Royal Air Force is seriously short of volunteers for enlistment. There have been recent signs of an upward trend but there is still a long way to go. We shall need help from all quarters in securing recruits, and I am anxious that the House should have full information about what is being done. I am therefore considering whether it would be useful to publish progress reports at regular intervals of time.

Wing-Commander Robinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how far the intake of new recruits falls short of the needs of the Service?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is very difficult to say with an upward trend, but there is still a very large deficit.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he is yet prepared to accept recruits for the women's unit? At the moment they are being refused and many wish to join or rejoin.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Perhaps my hon. Friend can let me have his information on the subject.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Minister give an assurance that, in future, the Royal Air Force will not wait for the Army to come out with improvements in the Service but will be original in this

matter, and will make the Service attractive for the purpose of their recruiting campaign?

"Royal Air Force Review "

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Secretary of State for Air how much will be the charge on public funds in respect of the new peacetime R.A.F. magazine called "The Review"; how much revenue from advertising it is estimated will be available to offset this; how many copies will be printed; and what is the total weight of paper per year which will be consumed.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The "Royal Air Force Review" replaces two war-time publications. It is an official paper which is at present issued free to the Service once a month. The circulation will come down, as the R.A.F. is reduced in size, but on the present basis it is estimated that the cost to public funds for paper and printing will be about £6,300 a year and the net revenue from advertising about £1,500. This calculation is based on an average monthly issue of 43,000 copies, for which 33 tons of paper a year would be required.

Mr. Allighan: Could the Secretary of State inform the House whether this publication is being issued under Paper Regulation No. 70 or whether it is getting its paper supplies through some other source?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not think I know the answer to that. But I do not expect that Paper Regulation No. 70 applies, because, as I have said, it is replacing two publications recently discontinued.

GERMANY

Allied Air Attacks

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will consult with the Governments of the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. with a view to publishing estimates of the casualties and material destruction caused by Allied air raids on the main centres of population in Germany.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: As my hon. Friend is, no doubt, aware, the United States Government published a summary report some time ago on the results of the Allied air attack on Germany. I am sending him a copy of this report, and I think he will


find that it contains much of what he wants. My Ministry have already obtained all the additional information which we require, and, when the facts have been studied and assessed, we shall certainly consider whether it will be useful to publish a more detailed report of our own.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does not the Minister realise that for the sake of future peace it is necessary for the world to know how much our ex-enemies suffered, as well as how much suffering they inflicted on others, as soon as full details are available?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think my hon. Friend will find a great deal in the United States report, which has already been published.

Population Census

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will state the estimated German population and the estimated non-German population in each of the four zones in Germany.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): Accurate figures will not be available until after the census which is to be held at the end of this month. The latest estimates are:




Germans.
Non-Germans.


British zone
…
23,122,000
320,000


American zone
…
17,745,000
467,300


Russian zone
…
22,000,000
600


French zone
…
5,785,000
42,600

British Propaganda

Major Beamish: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what British-edited German language newspapers are being printed in Germany; what is the circulation of each in the four zones, shown separately; and what plans there are for increasing the circulation.

Mr. J. Hynd: One British-edited German language newspaper, "Die Welt," is printed in Germany. It circulates only in the British zone and the British sector of Berlin. Its circulation was yesterday increased to 500,000, and it is now being published three times a week.

Major Beamish: Is the right. hon. Gentleman aware that the efforts of

British publicity and propaganda throughout Germany for the purpose of explaining the British point of view to the man in the street are thoroughly inadequate, and will he undertake to overhaul and improve the whole machinery?

Mr. Hynd: I presume that the hon. and gallant Member's supplementary question refers to the original question, namely, the Press? Our purpose is to increase the publication of "Die Welt," which is much appreciated in Germany, up to 1,000,000 copies as soon as possible, but the restrictions on such publicity are very severe at the moment due to the shortages of paper supplies, paper pulp and raw materials.

British Families (Accommodation)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will report on the question of how arrangements for the accommodation of wives and families of British personnel in Germany are working.

Mr. J. Hynd: A good start has been made with the scheme. As a result of the acute shortages existing in Germany, the accommodation and household equipment which can be made available falls short of prewar standards. In many cases families are housed in two to four rooms with two families sharing one kitchen and bathroom. Extra accommodation is, however, always arranged for families with several children, and every effort is made to provide suitable accommodation for all ranks. An adequate standard of comfort has, I think, been achieved, but this will be improved as more accommodation and household supplies become available. No family is given sailing orders until accommodation has actually been arranged for them.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is the Minister satisfied with the present policy of taking wives and families over there, and does he not consider that it would be better to concentrate on giving the men the opportunity to come over here?

Mr. Hynd: The latter part of the question has been given very full consideration, but I think it will be generally agreed by the House that it was inevitable that there should be provision for as many as possible of the personnel in Germany to have the amenities of home


life at the earliest possible stage. I might say that I discussed this very question with representative Germans in the various parts directly affected, and they share that opinion.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask whether the Minister will consider changing the policy and that, instead of turning the German families out of their homes, a system whereby they lose all their possessions, he will make arrangements for such homes to be shared between the British and Germans as was done after the last war?

Mr. Hynd: It is not true to say that the Germans who are removed from their homes lose all their possessions. It has been very definitely laid down that they cannot be removed until there is suitable alternative accommodation for them, and that is one of the reasons why we have to proceed with the reception of the families according to the alternative accommodation that can be made available.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister aware that the evidence of everybody who has visited Germany is to the effect that there is no suitable alternative accommodation, and will he give instructions that people are not to be removed, but that the sharing of homes is to take place as far as possible?

Mr. Hynd: I would certainly not like to give any such assurance on the last point without very careful consideration. On the first point, I must repeat that suitable alternative accommodation is a condition of any requisitioning and that, so far as people have been removed from their homes for this purpose, they have been suitably provided for.

Mr. Eden: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the opinion of private persons who have been to Germany is that there is no suitable alternative accommodation, and can he not tell us what the size of this problem is? How many families have been removed and how many families have gone from this country?

Mr. Hynd: I can give the figures of the families gone to date. The number of families who have so far been granted travel allocations is: Military, 468 wives and 514 children; civilian, 771 wives and 848 children. Of these, 728 wives and 790 children in all have now gone. That

is the position so far. As to suitable alternative accommodation, I think that quite a lot of the impressions gathered by casual visitors to Germany have been due to a confusion of certain other housing problems, which are very severe, with the situation of those people who are moved from their houses for the purpose of providing this accommodation.

Mr. Lipson: Will the Minister say whether the Germans who are turned out of their homes have any right of appeal and, if so, to whom?

Mr. Hynd: They can appeal to the German authorities. The organisation of the removals and the provision of alternative accommodation are in the hands of housing committees set up by the local German authorities on which representatives of such organisations as trade unions are represented.

Mr. McGovern: In view of the fact that serious allegations on this point are made from all quarters, will the Minister sponsor an official delegation of this House to investigate the problem?

Mr. Hynd: I do not know what serious allegations are referred to. The only allegation made so far is that suitable alternative accommodation is not provided for those who are removed from their homes, which allegation I am prepared to refute because I have made a personal investigation into it on a wide scale. I do not think that a delegation composed of Members of this House for the purpose of inquiring into that question would be more beneficial than the many delegations who have gone over to Germany to investigate this and other questions.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is the Minister aware that the luxury living and self-indulgence of many of these wives is having a most depressing effect on the German civilians among whom they have been planted?

Mr. Hynd: On the contrary, there is no evidence in my possession of any luxury living on the part of these people. The fact is that owing to the conditions in Germany, and because of the shortages not only of accommodation but of commodity goods and household equipment, they are living in conditions which are not comparable with those to which they would be entitled at home or in any other


place, but they are cheerfully putting up with it in most cases. In all cases that I have examined they are on excellent terms with their German neighbours.

Building Destruction, Kiel

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why a decision has been taken to blow up the administrative buildings of the T.V.A. factory at Eckernforde, near Kiel, in view of the fact that the buildings are urgently required for hospital purposes, and whether he will give instructions that these and similar buildings are to be preserved.

Mr. J. Hynd: These buildings formed part of the main German torpedo research and testing establishment which throughout the two world wars was the centre of German torpedo production. They were accordingly scheduled for destruction under the Quadripartite Agreement for the elimination of German war potential. Buildings scheduled for destruction may, however, be temporarily retained if they are required to meet the needs of the occupying Powers or authorised civilian needs of the Germans, and the question of the retention of these buildings as of other such buildings in the Kiel area is under consideration; account will be taken of the claims of interested German civilian authorities.

Mr. Stokes: Will my hon. Friend take some steps to prevent the Navy going completely mad in this matter and going round Germany blowing everything up? Does he not agree that steps are necessary to stop them behaving in this dastardly manner?

Mr. Hynd: The Naval Division is under the Allied Control Commission, and is not going round Germany blowing everything up. If my hon. Friend will read the answer he will find that the very Question that he has put to me is receiving consideration.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is it not a fact that the Navy are doing their best to blow up not only this but a great amount of similar accommodation which would be available to civilians, and that in fact it is only with the greatest difficulty that on each occasion they are stopped? Is it not time that some general instructions were issued to these Naval Divisions to hold their hands

until suitable alternative accommodation can be provided?

Mr. Hynd: No, Sir, because instructions were given some considerable time ago and steps are being taken in that direction. The building referred to in the. Question was already under consideration in accordance with that policy before the Question was put down on the Order Paper.

Vital Statistics

Mr. Marples: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what were the birth and death rates in the cities of Hamburg, Cologne, Essen and Dusseldorf in the period since the British occupation; and what were the figures in the last corresponding period before the occupation.

Mr. J. Hynd: Complete figures are not available, but the birth rates in these four cities over the first six months of this year were 12.9, 12.4, 12.3, and 10.9, while the corresponding death rates stood at 16.0, 14.0, 12.4 and 15.3. For the war period figures are only available in the case of Hamburg where the birth and death rates in the first half of 1945 stood at 11.3 and 17.8 respectively.

Reparation Deliveries

Mr. Marples: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether reparation deliveries out of the British zone of occupation in Germany have yet ceased.

Mr. J. Hynd: No, Sir.

Mr. Marples: Can the hon. Gentleman say when these deliveries will cease?

Mr. Hynd: I cannot say that the deliveries will cease. All I can say is that the deliveries are continuing in accordance with the allocations which have been made in the British and other zones.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Are war factories and shipyards still being dismantled and destroyed as part of the reparation policy? Is that being proceeded with?

Mr. Hynd: The elimination of the German war potential, in accordance with the obligation of the Potsdam Agreement, is being carried out. Direct war potential is being eliminated in accordance with the Potsdam Agreement, either by destruction or by allocation, for reparation


purpose?. The inter-allied Reparations Conference is still continuing.

FOOD SUPPLIES

Olive Oil

Mr. Hogg: asked the Minister of Food whether it will now be possible to make available 2,500 tons of olive oil for salad oil in this country.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): I sympathise strongly with the hon. Member's intentions. Unfortunately, Spain, Palestine, Portugal, France and French North Africa have all prohibited the export of olive oil; we have got a little from Syria but shall need it all for medicinal purposes. We are, however, trying other sources of supply.

Mr. Hogg: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has been importing a good deal of fruit from Italy, and in view of the fact that such small quantities of olive oil as could be obtained would count towards the fat ration, would he not consider the possibility of importing olive oil from Italy?

Mr. Strachey: Not unless we can induce the Italians to sell it to us. We cannot make them do so.

Mr. Hogg: Am I to understand that Italy is not among the countries he has just read out?

Mr. Strachey: I did not say that the Italian Government had prohibited the export of olive oil. We have not been able to buy any, but we will try.

Mr. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last season Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, both of which are under British control, each had an exportable surplus, and will he say whether any quantities of olive oil came from those countries to this country?

Mr. Strachey: I would need to have notice of that question.

Mr. Walkden: Has the Minister sent any strong buying mission out to Greece —places like Corinth and Patras—to find out what is available, and with authority to buy?

Mr. Strachey: We are closely in touch with the Greek representatives, whom I

saw in recent weeks. We hope to buy this and other commodities from Greece, but I think I would be misleading the House if I suggested that there were any large quantities of olive oil.

Bread Rationing (Flour Saving)

Mr. Hogg: asked the Minister of Food the estimated total savings of wheat and flour due to bread rationing to 1st October, 1946.

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Food whether he will make a statement on the wheat and bread situation, including the amount that has so far been saved by bread rationing, and the amount of cakes and buns that is now being sold as a result.

Mr. Strachey: The weekly off-take of flour from Ministry-controlled stocks prior to the introduction of bread rationing was, on the average, 101,000 tons; the off-takes during the 10 weeks of rationing have been, for each week as follows, in thousands of tons: 71, 69, 63, 76, 78, 83, 82, 82, 74, 82.
This is an average of 76,000 tons a week and a total of 760,000 tons for the ten weeks. At the old rate total off-take for the 10 weeks would have been 1,010,000 tons, so there is an apparent saving of 250,000. But there was certainly some stocking up before rationing. We put the stocking up figure at some 36,000 tons.
So the real saving in off-take appears to have been about 214,000 tons or about 20 per cent. so far. I hardly think that saving will continue at so high a rate. I am afraid that no separate figures are available for sales of cakes and buns.

Mr. Hogg: On the assumption that these figures are a reliable guide, and having regard to the fact that the Minister was only aiming at 7 per cent., is it not absolutely plain that the British people are being deprived of a considerable amount of flour?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. In the first place, I do not know whether the hon. Member was suggesting that the figures were unreliable or not—

Mr. Hogg: I said, on the assumption that they were reliable.

Mr. Strachey: I just wanted to get that point quite clear. On that assumption, the people are not being deprived of the


extra saving. They can take out bread units to a higher extent than they are doing. They are exchanging some of them for points goods, for example, and, therefore, they are not being deprived of bread or flour.

Mr. Freeman: Is it not a fact that the community have welcomed the allocation of cakes that they have been able to get since rationing was introduced and which they were not able to get before?

Captain John Crowder: If the right hon. Gentleman has any future statement to make on bread rationing, will he arrange to make it to this House and not to a Press conference, as was reported in the papers this morning?

Mr. Strachey: I was asked a direct question on the future of bread rationing at a Press conference yesterday, and it was necessary for me to answer that question, but now that the House is sitting

I will certainly make all such announcements to this House.

Mr. Hogg: I want to press the right hon. Gentleman on this. He gave us to understand that the target was a 7 per cent. saving. He now gives us to understand he has succeeded in saving 20 per cent. Does it not follow from this that he is saving somewhere about 13 per cent. more than was originally regarded as necessary, and is not that a thoroughly bad thing?

Mr. Straehey: No, Sir. The saving has been greater than our extremely conservative estimate—and I am very glad we made a conservative estimate—but it is in a sense very largely a voluntary saving.

NEW MEMBER MAKES AFFIRMATION

James Carmichael, esquire, for the Burgh of Glasgow (Bridgeton Division).

BILLS PRESENTED

COINAGE BILL

"to provide for a coinage other than silver to be legal tender for payments up to forty shillings, and for consequential amendments of enactments relating to silver coin; to amend the law as to the fineness of silver coins of the King's Maundy moneys; and to confer further powers as to the purchase of metal for coinage," presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Mr. Glenvil Hall; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 159.]

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (NO. 2) BILL

"to grant money for the purpose of certain local loans out of the Local Loans Fund; to make provision as to the Public Works Loan Commissioners entering into undertakings to grant loans; and to repeal the provisions of section ninety-two of the Housing Act, 1936, and of section seventy-three of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, as to the minimum rate of interest therein mentioned," presented by

Mr. Glenvil Hall; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 158.]

UNEMPLOYMENT INSUKANCE (EIRE VOLUNTEERS) BILL

"to empower the Minister of National Insurance to give effect to arrangements for paying unemployment benefit to persons ordinarily resident in Eire who have served in His Majesty's Forces; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. James Griffiths; supported by Mr. Arthur Greenwood, Mr. Ede and Mr. Isaacs; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 160.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. William Whiteley.]

The House divided: Ayes, 299; Noes, 110.

Division No. 282.]
AYES
3.35 p.m.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Carmichael, James
Foot, M. M.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Forman, J. C.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Chamberlain, R. A.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Allighan, Garry
Champion, A. J.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)


Alpass, J. H.
Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Cluse, W. S.
Gibbins, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Cocks, F. S.
Gilzean, A.


Attewell, H. C.
Coldrick, W.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Austin, H. L.
Collick, P.
Gooch, E. G.


Awbery, S. S.
Collindridge, F.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.


Ayles, W. H.
Collins, V. J.
Granville, E. (Eye)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Grenfell, D. R.


Bacon, Miss A.
Comyns, Dr. L.
Grey, C. F.


Baird, J.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Grierson, E.


Balfour, A.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Barslow, P. G.
Corvedale, Viscount
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)


Barton, C.
Cove, W. G.
Gunter, Capt. R. J.


Battley, J. R.
Crawley, A.
Guy, W. H.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)


Belcher, J. W.
Daggar, G.
Hale, Leslie


Benson, G.
Daines, P.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)


Berry, H.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.


Beswick, F.
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Hardy, E. A.


Bing, G. H. C.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Harrison, J.


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Boardman, H.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Bottomley, A. G.
Deer, G.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Herbison, Miss M.


Bowen, R.
Dobbie, W.
Hicks, G.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Dodds, N. N.
Hobson, C. R.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Holman, P.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Dumpleton, C. W.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Bramall, Major E. A.
Durbin, E. F. M.
Horabin, T. L.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hoy, J.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Edelman, M.
Hubbard, T.


Brown, George (Belper)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)


Buchanan, G.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)


Burden, T. W.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Burke, W. A.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Hynd, J. D. (Attercliffe)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Byers, Frank
Fairhurst, F.
Janner, B.


Callaghan, James
Farthing, W. J.
Jay, D. P. T.




Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Strachey, J.


John, W.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Stross, Dr. B.


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Stubbs, A. E.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Summerskill, Dr Edith


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Swingler S.


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Symonds, A. L.


Keenan, W.
Oldfield, W. H.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Kenyon, C.
Paget, R. T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Kinley, J.
Parker, J.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Kirkwood, D.
Parkin, B. T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Pearson, A.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Thurtle, E.


Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Perrins, W.
Tiffany, S.


Lipson, D. L.
Piratin, P.
Timmons, J.


Logan, D. G.
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Tolley, L.


Longden, F.
Popplewell, E.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Lyne, A. W.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Usborne, Henry


McAdam, W.
Proctor, W. T.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


McAllister, G.
Pryde, D.J.
Viant, S.P.


McEntee, V. La T
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wadsworth, G.


McGhee, H. G.
Randall, H. E.
Walkden, E.


McGovern, J.
Ranger, J.
Walker, G. H.


Mack, J. D.
Rankin, J.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Wallance, H.W. (Walthamostow, E.)


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Reeves, J.
Walbey, W. N.


McKinlay, A S.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Watkins, T. E.


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Richards, R.
Watson, T. E.


McLeavy, F.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Weitzman, D.


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wells, P.L. (Faversham)


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Rogers, G. H. R.
Wells, W.T. (Walsall)




West, D. G.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Sargood, R.
West wood, Rt. Hon. J.


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Scollan, T.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Mann, Mrs. J.
Scott-Elliot, W.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Segal, Dr. S.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Wigg, Col. G.E.


Mathers, G.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C.A.B.


Medland, H.M.
Shurmer, P.
Willey, F.T. (Sunderland)


Messer, F.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Willey, O. G. (Cleverland)


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Skinnard, F. W.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Manslow, W.
Smith, C. (Clochester)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Montague, F.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Williams, W. R (Heston)


Moody, A. S.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Williamson, T.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Willis, E.


Morley, R.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Wilson, J. H.


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Solley, L. J.
Woodburn, A.


Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Wyatt, W.


Mort, D. L.
Sparks, J. A.
Yates, V. F.


Moyle, A.
Stamford, W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Murray, J. D.
Stephen, C.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Nally, W.
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)



Naylor, T. E. 
Stokes, R. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hannan.




NOES


Aitken, Hon. Max.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gammans, L. D.
Lucas, Major Sir J.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. 
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Glyn, Sir R.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.


Barlow, Sir J.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
McCallum, Maj. D.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Grimston, R. V.
Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)


Bullock, Capt. M. 
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Challen, C.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Channon, H.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Haughton, S. G.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marples, A. E.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Marsden, Capt. A.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Mellor, Sir J.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Morris-Jones, Sir H.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


De la Bère, R.
Jennings, R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Digby, S. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.


Drayson, G. B. 
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Mullan, Lt. C. H.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Nicholson, G.


Eccles, D. M.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Osborne, C.


Erroll, F. J.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Linstead H. N.
Pooe, O. B. S. (Oswestry).




Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Shephard, S. (Newark)
Turton, R. H.


Raikes, H. V.
Smiles, Lt. Col. Sir W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Ramsay, Maj. S.
Snadden, W. M.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Spearman, A. C. M.
Walker-Smith, D.


Renton, D.
Spence, H. R.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
York, C.


Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)



Sanderson, Sir F.
Sutcliffe, H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Savory, Prof. D. L.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Mr. Drewe and Commander


Scott, Lord W.
Touche, G. C.
Agnew.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HILL FARMING BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Hearings before revocation or variation of improvement schemes.)

Before revoking or varying a hill fanning land improvement scheme the appropriate Minister shall afford to—

(a) the person or persons who under the scheme as it stands immediately before the revocation or variation, is or are responsible for doing the work described therein;
(b) any person having an interest in the land for the benefit of which improvements are thereby proposed or in other land specified in the scheme as land on which work is to be done; and
(c) any other person who satisfies the appropriate Minister that representations by him ought to be taken into consideration;
an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed for the purpose by the appropriate Minister, and shall consider the report of that person.—[Mr. T. Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.47 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This proposed new Clause implements an assurance which was given to hon. Members opposite in Committee. Clause 5 of the Bill requires that the Minister should afford persons interested in any scheme which it is proposed to revoke or vary in the public interest an opportunity of being heard before the scheme is revoked or varied. It was objected in Committee that we ought not either to revoke or vary a scheme without affording an opportunity to any person whose interests might be affected by the variation to be heard. This new Clause fulfils the promise given in Committee. It was necessary, however, to define the classes of person and the nature of their interests. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) achieve that.

Paragraph (b) is necessary because, under Clause 3 (2), a scheme may be submitted by any person having an interest in the land—a landlord, for example, who would not be doing the work, but who might take over if those who were actually doing the work could not complete that work satisfactorily. Similarly, a person on whose land work is to be carried out for the benefit of other land, may be heard, and paragraph (c) covers other interested persons, such as an intending purchaser, once a scheme has actually been completed. I think the new Clause fulfils the promise I gave, and I beg to move.

Mr. Snadden: My hon. Friends and I wish to express our appreciation of the fact that the Minister has thought fit to insert this new Clause in the Bill; particularly, when we recall that in Committee the Parliamentary Secretary thought it would be unreasonable to do so, and, I think, the right hon. Gentleman himself said it would be a waste of time. We are very grateful that he now thinks differently. There is only one question I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman. So that there may be no confusion in the application of this new Clause, could he say quite definitely and make it clear that it refers to Clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill?

Mr. T. Williams: Quite clearly.

Mr. Snadden: If that is so we are entirely satisfied.

Major McCallum: May I ask the Minister to help me on one point regarding this subject of the variation of improvement schemes? It was commonly supposed—I believe that, if there was not a promise, it was stated in a speech outside the House—that this Bill was expected by the Government to become an Act before the House rose for the Summer Recess. On the strength of that expectation, certain farmers got busy and started on work which, admittedly, they


should not have done until the Bill had become an Act. In view of the difficulty of getting supplies and licences, and all the trouble of getting work going, they carried on as if the Bill had been an Act under which they could have submitted their schemes. Would it be possible, when the schemes are submitted under this Measure when it becomes an Act, to include work, approved by the Minister, which has been started since 1st August?

Mr. T. Williams: It is quite true that we were hopeful that the (Bill might get the Third Reading here, and pass through another place, before the Summer Adjournment, but unfortunately that was not possible. As to any scheme on which work is already being undertaken, forming part of a future improvement scheme, I am afraid I should want to see the details before I could give a definite promise. However, I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that with the good will of the House it will not be many days before the Bill passes through here and perhaps also through another place, and I hope we shall not occupy a lot of time with it this afternoon.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Grants under schemes for improvement of hill farming land.)

Mr. Scott-Elliot: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, after "proposed," to insert:
having special regard to the need for re-seeding and regeneration of grazings.
The purpose of this Amendment is comparatively simple. It will require the Minister, when he is considering a scheme, to see whether reseeding and regeneration of grazings are practicable and desirable and, if so, to insist on this being done. It may be asked why I move this Amendment at all, in view of the fact that the words "reseeding and regeneration of grazings" appear in the First Schedule. The point is this. Most of the items in that Schedule are items which will be carried out, whether by the landlords or the tenants, of their own volition, but this is not such an item. It is one normally performed by the tenants, and—I think I can speak with some knowledge of tenants, at any rate in the South of Scotland— while it may be that the tenant would go

in for draining, for bracken cutting or even for the rather radical process, as it may appear to him, of liming his land, he will not go in for something he does not understand, which, he thinks, will be very troublesome, and about the outcome of which he is not quite sure.
I admit that reseeding of hill land throughout the Highlands is in many cases quite impracticable, but there are parts where it can be of very great value, and as one who has seen some extraordinarily interesting work within the last month, I should like to give an account of it. The farm in question is at the altitude of something under 1,000 ft. and contains some 300 acres of pure hill land and about 250 acres of rough grazing, which was formerly cultivated by crofters. Indeed, at one time I believe it provided a livelihood for no less than four families. When the present tenant of the farm took it over, it would support 20 or 25 cattle for about eight months in the year. He went in for a vigorous process of reseeding, combined of course with drainage, and he has so far reseeded about 100 acres. The farm will now support 100 head of cattle with, say, 60 followers. The tenant is proposing to reseed the entire 250 acres, and when he has done so he is expecting to be able to carry, on that farm, between 250 and 300 Highland and cross-Highland cows with their followers—in other words, more than 10 times the stock carried on the land when he first took it over. I would add that the hill land has benefited enormously owing to the increased number of cattle. Perhaps I should point out that, although this sounds a very great number of cattle to be kept on a comparatively small acreage, they are only kept there for eight or nine months in the year, during the remaining part of the year being driven to lower ground where they are fed on baled straw.
Of course there are difficulties in this kind of work; in the first place, the cost. It is estimated that quite apart from drainage—the question of the subsidy for drainage is a rather vexed one into which I will not enter—it will cost some £14 per acre, inclusive of fencing, because, of course, it is necessary to fence. Very often, it is necessary to plough with a caterpillar tractor, which may have to be hired from the war agricultural committee, and finally, it is necessary, after taking a catch crop of rape, to sow it with


a good mixture of grass seed containing a certain amount of wild white clover, which is a very expensive item. Next the cost of the drainage to which I have referred is very considerable, and, finally, there is the cost of the additional stock, because if the land is to be reseeded and to be worth a lot more at the end, obviously a great deal of money will have to come out of the tenant's pocket to pay for additional stock. Reseeding has to be done efficiently if it is to succeed. It is a tricky business and will need careful supervision. I ask the Minister to treat this Amendment sympathetically, because if he does, he will be benefiting not only the tenant-farmers of Scotland in particular, but the whole people of Britain, who so sadly need an increased supply of meat. It may well be—and I am probably understating the case rather than overstating it —that if we can procure this reseeding on a sufficiently wide acreage, a considerable additional supply of home-grown meat will be provided for our people.

Mr. Watkins: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. T. Williams: While I agree with almost every word uttered by my hon. Friend with regard to the importance of reseeding, and that reseeding ought to figure prominently in any rehabilitation scheme where it is possible, I am also reminded of the fact that special mention is made of reseeding in item 18 of the First Schedule, line 31. There was, therefore, in the promotion of the Bill, general appreciation of the necessity for reseeding where possible. It may not, of course, always be the most urgent item in any particular rehabilitation scheme; none the less, I could not agree more with my hon. Friend than I do when he stresses the importance of reseeding where it can take place. However, if these words were inserted I do not see how, to be logical, we could avoid inserting other items in the Clause, which would end by duplicating the First Schedule in Clause 1. That in no way detracts from the validity of my hon. Friend's arguments, and I can assure him that as the Minister has the right to approve every improvement scheme, due attention will be paid to reseeding, where it is a possibility in any rehabilitation scheme. I can assure him that assent will not be given where reseeding does not form a part of the scheme if we believe that it ought to form a part of it. I hope,

therefore, that my hon. Friend will not feel disposed to press the Amendment.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, to leave out "excessive", and to insert "unreasonably high."
At an earlier stage we had a discussion upon this subject. As the Bill is now drafted, we feel that it will deter applicants from going in for schemes, because they will know that the costs of the work are bound to be high, and they will think therefore that the Minister will regard them as excessive. The speech which we heard from the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) in moving the last Amendment will show the House how expensive is this business of reseeding and fencing. We believe that the words "unreasonably high" will give a shade of meaning which is slightly different from the word "excessive," and that it will protect us against what I think we must take great care to be protected against, and that is the contract which is swollen by reason of a grant attaching to the work. One finds where there is a 50 per cent. grant, the cost tends to be increased. Therefore, I think that the words "unreasonably high" make an improvement to the Bill. If the House will agree to this Amendment, I would point out that there is a consequential Amendment to Clause 6, in page 5, line 34.

Mr. Snadden: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think that this is a very important point, because on page 2 of the Bill we are told that the Government really desire comprehensive schemes. I know that in my part of the country many people will be prepared to put forward large schemes costing a good deal of money. It may be that roads and bridges will have to be put right, and it would be a pity if anything were done to discourage the submission of large schemes which is one of the prime objects of the Bill. We think that there is some danger in retaining the word "excessive," and for that reason I support my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton).

Mr. T. Williams: As I explained in Committee, I can scarcely see the difference in interpretation between the word "excessive" and the words "unreasonably high." It was explained that very few schemes would have to be rejected on account of excessive costs, because it is quite unlikely that those who are promoting the schemes would promote them at high cost, unless they were going to provide at least a reasonable return for their personal capital outlay. However, if hon. Members lay so much stress on the difference between the words "excessive" and "unreasonably high," in spite of the shortage of paper and the necessary addition of one more word to the Bill, I really have no objection to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 15, and to insert:
heath and upland grazings or mountain, hill, heath and upland land which by improvement could be made suitable for grazing purposes.
We have put down this Amendment because there was considerable discussion in Committee on the definition of "hill land." We see considerable difficulties arising owing to the fact that this single Bill covers England and Wales as well as Scotland, instead of our having, as in a normal case, a separate Bill for England and Wales. When the matter of hill farming was examined in the days of the Coalition Government two separate committees were set up, one for Scotland and one for England. Anyone reading the reports of those committees will realise that there are in the very nature of the circumstances of the two countries, appreciable differences in conditions.
Although it may well be that the definition as it stands in the Bill covers conditions in Scotland, my experience as a Minister leads me to doubt whether it will be sufficiently wide to cover the much greater variety of circumstances with which we are faced in the case of England and Wales. We found, in the administration of the hill sheep subsidy, very considerable difficulties owing to the fact that conditions were quite different in Cumberland and Westmorland as compared for example with Dartmoor or Exmoor. We think that there will be considerable administrative convenience if the Minister,

so far as England is concerned, merely took powers to define the different areas by regulation. That did not meet with the approval of the Government, but during the discussion the right hon. Gentleman promised to have another look at the problem of definition and see whether anything could be done on Report stage. He has not put down any Amendment, and we have accordingly put down this Amendment for the purpose of giving him an opportunity to explain why he has not succeeded in getting a better definition, or explaining, if he can, why he thinks the existing definition wide enough to cover the different variations of conditions in the United Kingdom.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: Before supporting this Amendment, may I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on one point? Is it in the interest of the House that we should discuss, on this Amendment, the other Amendments on the Paper dealing with the same subject, namely,, the definition of hill farming?

Mr. Speaker: I think that all four Amendments on the Paper run together.

Sir T. Dugdale: With that knowledge I should like to support the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson). We are still anxious about the definition, and we still think that as far as England and Wales are concerned the position is not satisfactory. There are two points to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. First, there is the question of including in this Clause cattle as well as sheep, because in our view, if we are really to improve hill farming land in this country, we shall be able to do so only if we have cattle and sheep grazing together on the hill land. As the Bill reads at the moment there is no mention of cattle, and for that reason we have put down an Amendment to include in the Clause "sheep or cattle," and later to leave out, in line 19, the word "sheep" so that the Bill will read "hill farming." I think that this is a point of major substance in the Bill, because as we get more prosperity in hill farming in this country, it must be in the interests of food production and of the land itself that there should be an increase of cattle on hill land.
The other point to which I should particularly like to refer to is that of winter


fodder. We discussed this in Committee, and I will not weary the House with the arguments which were used upstairs. But it seems to me that the real crux of the problem of improving hill farming is to ensure good winter fodder for sheep and cattle which are grazed in summertime on hill farms. In Scotland, the definition may be much simpler, because it is a question of black and white. It is easy to define what is a hill farm and what is not, whereas in England, particularly in the dales of Yorkshire and on the borders of Wales, there are marginal farms where half the stock which has been grazed in the summer months has been grazed on the hillside, comes down in the winter, and is fed on fodder at a lower altitude on ground which might easily feed sheep other than sheep of the hardy kind. It is for that reason that we put down these Amendments, in the hope that the Minister may be able to comply with his promise in Committee to look into this admittedly difficult problem of getting a good definition of "hill farming"

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: I support this Amendment very warmly. I entirely agree with what has just been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale). In many parts of the North of England cattle are already a vital part of the economy of farms which are really hill farms, and they ought to be, on many farms, a much more vital part of the farm economy than they are at present. I ask the Minister to consider the system in Westmorland, in the Lake District. There, dairy shorthorn cattle go up to great heights on the hills, and in order that these hills should be farmed well, this should be so. In another part of the country, the Border area along the English side, black Galloways are the chief fat stock. There, also, they go up among the hill sheep. If those upland pastures are to be improved farmers should be encouraged to keep more cattle. It may be said that, later in the Bill, there is a subsidy provision which does encourage the keeping of cattle on these lands. But it seems a roundabout way of giving that encouragement to define the land as land on which hill sheep of the hardy kind are kept, and then to give a subsidy for keeping cattle on those farms. It is not in keeping with the actual facts of the situation. The farms are sheep and cattle

farms, and they ought to have more cattle on them.
The Minister may say that the alterations suggested will extend the operation of this Bill to too much land, that the intention of the Bill is to help only the very high hill farms, and that it may be that by altering the definition, the assistance will be spread further down the hills to land which is commonly described, in the North of England, as marginal land rather than hill farm land. To that, I would say that there are many farms, and most successful hill farms, which combine real hill land with lower land, some of which is marginal and which is sometimes good, even arable, land. It is of farms of that sort which are at the present time most successful, and it seems very unfair that they should be excluded from assistance under this Bill, because in addition to their hill land, they have some marginal land and some land which is better than marginal land.
It may be that not enough money is being devoted to this purpose. The Minister may use that argument, but one thing is certain: If you want to produce more food as the result of this Bill it is marginal land which will give the greatest return for the money spent. Where you have a high hill along with some marginal land, the economy of the whole farm, including the high hill, will be best strengthened by improving more easily the lower land. That will react to the advantage of the hill sheep and cattle in providing more winter keep, perhaps even better summer grazing too, and give what those farms so badly need—a better balance between what is available for livestock in the winter and in the summer. For this and other reasons, I hope the Minister will be able to accept the alteration in the definition.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I too have been a little worried by the definition in the Bill. After all, this Bill is primarily intended to provide for expenditure which is uneconomic for the individual, but is of benefit to the agricultural community as a whole. The real reason why this expenditure is of benefit to the agricultural community as a whole is that the hill farms provide the stock which will then come down to the lowlands. The time will come when the lowlands' animal stock will have to be increased. I feel that that will


probably apply to dairying more than anything else and hill farms, especially in Cumberland, of which I have a good deal of experience, are breeding the highest quality of dairy shorthorn heifers. That should be encouraged in order to provide that supply which will be needed in the fairly near future.
Great emphasis was laid by my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) on the question of reseeding. I have experienced reseeding only at lower levels, but I am very doubtful whether sheep could really cope with re-seeded land. It comes so quickly that I should have thought that it would get too high for the sheep to get real benefit out of it. To be able to work reseeded land properly, and to get the best benefit from it, you want to be able to interchange cattle and sheep. I hope the Minister will be able to include some high level cattle land within this scheme. He has the last word with regard to a scheme and if he does not think that any particular scheme involving cattle land is really within the intention of the Bill, then it is open to him to reject it.

Mr. Spearman: I should like to support the Amendment very strongly, because I am sure that in sheep-rearing circles it is not sufficiently realised how much grazing is improved by cattle. Perhaps I might briefly give my personal experience. I keep a certain number of sheep on a high mountain, so high that a few years ago I bought hill grazing considerably lower down to winter some of the flock. In the first year I proposed to put on 60 cattle in the summer in the hope of improving the grazing, but my shepherd very strongly objected, and said that it would ruin the winter flock. Last year I put on 120 cattle, and he now admits that the grazing is considerably better than it was before.
I support what the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) said about definition. I feel that this Bill is going to be very helpful in many ways, but I would suggest to the Minister that it falls down on this question of definition. May I give an instance in my constituency, which I expect is common to many other parts? I know six hill farmers who used to keep sheep. Five of these six, all of whom had a common stray on to the common moor, have given

up keeping sheep, because it does not pay them to do so. The sixth farmer tells me that he will have to give up keeping sheep unless the fencing question can be dealt with. As the Bill now stands, I can see no hope of these five farmers qualifying and fences being put up. Unless there is a greater improvement in this matter, we shall not achieve the object of this Bill, which should be to encourage people to keep sheep on the hill grazings, instead of the sheep disappearing as is happening in my case in Yorkshire.

Sir John Barlow: All of us who have considered this Bill realise the difficulty of defining adequately exactly what hill farming is. The more we study this question the more we are convinced that the emphasis is wrongly placed on sheep and sheep alone, in the Bill. We think it most important to emphasise the cattle side. It has been repeatedly pointed out this afternoon that more cattle on the hill will benefit agriculture in these parts very considerably indeed. For that reason, I should like to see cattle included in the definition. Although there has been a great improvement in production in agriculture in recent years, many of us feel sure that the increase could be far greater on marginal and hill land farms than on the lowland farms. For that reason we welcome this Bill, but we wish to see it well-balanced in the definition of what it is intended to do, and we wish, therefore, to see cattle emphasised in the Bill, and more cattle on the hills.

Mr. McKie: I do not often find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts), but it gives me great pleasure this afternoon to support every word he has said, and to support nearly every word that has been said by other speakers on this side of the House. Of course, conditions throughout Great Britain vary from county to county. I am speaking almost entirely of the purely hill farms, or what under the terms of the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), would be called mountain farms. I would stress particularly the necessity for increasing the number of cattle on this kind of holding—I am thinking almost entirely of Scotland—and the necessity of increasing the permanent stocks of cows. I am glad to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for North


Cumberland who spoke about the black Galloway cattle in his Division. He knows the increasingly important part which we hope, in the future, these cattle will play not only in his Division but in the southern counties of Scotland as well. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) indicated that he thought that if cattle were encouraged for summer grazing only, that would be sufficient. I was discussing this matter with a very large stock farmer in Scotland as recently as Saturday last, and I must disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend.
I should like to stress the necessity of making these stocks of cows on the hill farms permanent. It is quite true that a higher subsidy is given for cows than bullocks, but the increase in cows has not been nearly as marked as we would like to see. I think the reason is probably to be found in the fact that the average price of calves from this kind of holding has dropped from £15 in 1944 to £10 in 1945. The reason for that is to be found in the fact that there is no encouragement given by this Government, and not very much was given by the late Coalition Government, to the beef factors. Unless there is a proper balance of economy in regard to beef producers, we shall not have raised on hill farms, or any other kind of farms, the proper amount of beef cattle. It seems to me that if the Minister accepts, as I hope he will accept—he has shown himself in a reasonable mood this afternoon and has already allowed us one crumb of comfort—the wider definition which my right hon. Friend has proposed, it will go not a very long way but a little way towards bringing about an increase of cattle on the hill or mountain farms, particularly stocks of cows, which I for one and many other Members on this side of the House wish to see. I eagerly await the words of the right hon. Gentleman, and, looking at his face, I feel sure he is going to accept this Amendment.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: I would like to support what the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) has said. I look upon his constituency as being the next one to mine. We are separated by a very narrow strip of water, but I regard Galloway and Antrim as being neighbouring constituencies. In my constituency

we go in largely for Galloway cattle. I would emphasise what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) and other hon. Members regarding the necessity of providing a definition for hill farming land so as to carry cattle on that land. The Balfour Committee, which dealt with the question of hill farming in Scotland, and this Bill emphasise very strongly the necessity of providing sheep and cattle on hill land. For that reason the two should be taken together. We know that cattle grazing on hill land improves that land, and I hope that in view of what has been said on all sides of the House, the Minister of Agriculture will see his way to alter, in the sense we desire, the definition of hill farming land.

4.30 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I support the Amendment, which I hope the Minister will accept. I have no doubt that an immense increase of cattle on the hills of Scotland will be the safeguard and salvation of Scottish agriculture. The incessant sheep feeding which has gone on has resulted in the land deteriorating over enormous areas, and the addition of cattle will put that right quicker than will anything else. One has only to consider the bracken menace, which in my opinion is entirely due to cattle having gone off the hills and sheep being put there in their place. In front of my own home there is a long stretch of hills which should be perfect grazing, but they are absolutely sheep-sick from end to end. Anything that will encourage the putting of cattle on to those hills and similar hills will bring untold benefit to agriculture in Scotland. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who, I feel sure, is sympathetic to Scotland, will do his best to meet us in this respect. This is a very reasonable Amendment, and it would be a very valuable one if it were incorporated in the Bill.

Mr. T. Williams: Nothing would give me greater joy than to be able to say that I agree with every word uttered by every hon. Member opposite who has spoken, and also the words spoken by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). There are occasions, however, when an Amendment may be misconceived. It is true that this Amendment is almost a replica of


one that was dealt with in Committee— [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]—when an effort was made to extend the definition of hill farming. On that occasion, I quite properly promised hon. Members in all parts of the Committee that the question would be re-examined. The question has been fully re-examined, but I am satisfied, after all our consideration, that it would be undesirable to widen the scope of the Bill as limited by the definition in Clause 1, (3). Let me say at once that the omission of the word "cattle" from the definition has no meaning in that cattle are normally associated with hill farming, and, of course, if hon. Members will look at Clause 12, they will see that the right is taken by the Minister to introduce hill cattle and hill sheep subsidy schemes. That being the case, I ought to make the further observation that this is a Hill Farming Bill and not a marginal land Bill. If it had been the latter, I am sure the observations of most hon. Members would have been infinitely more pertinent than they are with regard to this Bill.
I will give the reasons why I think my decision is the correct one. First, no satisfactory definition of marginal land can be devised, if only for the reason that the conception of what is marginal land will be bound to vary from time to time in accordance with changes in the economic situation of agriculture. Even in the case of farms at present generally accepted as near marginal in character, no hard and fast line could be drawn, because between the marginal and the non-marginal they tend to merge one into the other almost imperceptibly by degrees. Therefore, without a satisfactory definition of hill farming land, administration would become well nigh impossible. Secondly, if marginal lands were included, it would be impossible to set a hard and fast rule between marginal lands in the hill farming districts and marginal farms in other hill districts, such as the chalk downs in the South of England. This Amendment would actually apply to any rough grazing in any part of the country. The rough heath land which is found, for instance, on Thetford Heath in East Anglia, and the sandy areas in Surrey, could hardly be excluded if the Amendment were adopted. Thirdly, in point of fact—and here, I believe, there is some misunder-

standing—a good deal of marginal land in hill farming areas will come within the scope of the Bill as at present constructed. Clause 1 (1) provides that the Minister may approve schemes for making improvements for the benefit of hill farming land as defined
or of other land suitable for use therewith for hill farming purposes.
I am afraid many hon. Members have failed to read those words and get the right significance of them. The term "hill farming purposes" includes many other activities carried on in conjunction with hill sheep farming. Clearly, this will include improvements to intakes. It is also possible to carry out improvements where sheep walks are several miles distant from the holdings proper, provided, of course, they are designed to facilitate activities which are usually associated with hill farming. It may include even the keeping of a dairy herd, and certainly it will cover the rearing and maintenance of hardy cattle. On the other hand, marginal farms in hill areas where no sheep walk is attached would be completely excluded. The problem of purely marginal farms is admittedly an extremely difficult one, but it is not necessarily related exclusively to hill farming. I have reached the conclusion, therefore, that to widen the scope of this Bill would tend to defeat the object which we all have in mind. After all, the object of the Bill is to provide for the improvement of hill farms.
There has been some criticism that Clause 1, Subsection (3), lines 3 and 4, might be employed to exclude land which by improvement could be made suitable to carry sheep of less hardy kinds. I can say that there is no such intention. Actually the phrase is used in the Bill to cover certain lands, such as the deer forests in Scotland, which carry no sheep at all, but which could be made to carry sheep if appropriate improvements were made. To sum up, it seems to me that the Bill as drafted will enable us to achieve the object we have in mind—the rehabilitation of hill farms. To accept the Amendment would widen the scope to an unacceptable extent, and for that reason, and the fact that there is a limitation on the cash made available for this Bill, I hope that hon. Members having had this fairly comprehensive explanation, will not feel disposed to press the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Turton: I am not at all satisfied with the Minister's reply. I think he is under a delusion that this Amendment is the same Amendment as was moved in Committee on the subject of marginal land. What actually is this Amendment? We have used in it the wording of the remit to the Balfour Committee and the De La Warr Committee that dealt with hill and upland sheep farming. Their terms of reference were to investigate the present position of hill and upland sheep farming and suggest measures which might be taken to improve the condition of hill and upland grazing. That was the remit on which were founded the reports which is the origin of the Bill, and we suggest that this wording should be used for the definition. The Minister has admitted that his definition is not satisfactory. He has had to pray in aid different Clauses in an effort to show that his intentions are honourable, although they do not succeed.
It may be that our wording, based on the remit to the Balfour Committee, is not satisfactory. We have not had an argument from the Minister that it is not. He says that we were under a misapprehension because we had forgotten that in Clause 1, he has brought in other lands suitable for use for hill farming purposes. He says thereby that intakes are brought in only if farmed together with a sheep strain. I know that the position in Scotland is that 100 per cent. of the farmers will qualify, so that there is no real worry in Scotland over this definition. It is when we get to the unfortunate English farmers that we find it is not a question of 100 per cent. or even 50 per cent. As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) fewer than 20 per cent. of the hill farmers in England will qualify because unlike those in Scotland they are not big men owning large acres of land for winter fodder. They are small men; most of them, through force of circumstances, have given up their strains and they are living on intake from the moorland that their forefathers took that is not fief but that is on the slope of the hill. Unless the Minister, by this definition, can alter the position, they cannot improve that intake land.
What is that intake land? At the present time it is covered with bracken. I have here the De la Warr Report which I thought we were trying to carry out.

What does it say under paragraph 65 about this? It says:
Over large areas, including intakes and useful lower hill slopes, bracken now causes serious restriction of grazing, interference with shepherding, and a habitat associated with infestation by the tick, blow-fly, and chafer beetle.
That is a great problem which we in Parliament have to help to solve by this Bill. It is these small men who have not the capital who need the help of this Bill to improve their intake holdings and to eradicate the bracken. This House can help by altering this definition—or we can be helped by another place. While Scotland is to receive its full value for money, England is to receive only a very small proportion. This affects Yorkshire, I know full well, and it also affects our sister county of Lancashire. Why are these men to be excluded by this definition? With our limited resources we have gone back to the definition which the Government themselves used when they tried to define the problem. I must say that I regard the Minister's explanation on that point as entirely unsatisfactory. Then he goes on to say that he has not included cattle because the word "cattle" was used in Clause 12. But Clause 12 is an entirely different point; it does not deal with these schemes for improvement of hill farming land but with the scheme for subsidies. No court will hold that because in Clause 12 cattle are included a definition of hill farming land in Clause 1 that excludes cattle can be regarded as including cattle. Here Parliament is saying in Clause 1 that hill farming land means certain types of land that is used for the maintenance of sheep of a hardy kind, not of cattle, and even if the Minister cannot give us our main point on upland grazing I do hope he will have second thoughts on this question of cattle.
There is no party division in this matter, all of us who have knowledge of hill farming know that the cattle are its salvation. Let us therefore put them in. Let us not describe it as "hill sheep farming." It is not hill sheep fanning but hill farming. It would not hurt the Minister to give way on this; it would not cost a penny and would not mean that England received very much more money than Scotland. It would mean that England would receive equal treatment with Scotland. I realise the Minister's difficulty. He does not wish


to see English farmers get an undue proportion; he would have the Secretary of State for Scotland watching him closely in that respect. But let us be fair about this and try to help the English hill farmer as well as his Scottish counterpart, an aim in which with the best of intentions, the Minister is not at present succeeding.
One other small point is that the Minister has told us that land is included "which by improvement could be made so suitable," and that this is meant to include the Scottish deer forest that now supports deer but could be improved to support sheep. He may intend that, but the construction a court might place upon it might be entirely different. In an earlier stage the Secretary of State for Scotland gave a different interpretation. He said that it was not really meant to exclude land that could be improved so that it could support sheep that were better than a lot of the hardy kind—the half-breed. Could not we have it clear? The definition that the House is considering now says, "Upland land which by improvement could be made suitable for grazing purposes." That makes it quite clear, but it is not clear as drafted by the Minister.
Finally, may I revert again to the great controversy in Scotland: What is meant by "sheep of a hardy kind?" It really comes down to the Scots and therefore Scotland will always win although in Yorkshire we have better sheep than the Scots. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] If hon. Members want confirmation they should go to the markets and see the prices they make. That is the answer. I am not going to enter into an argument, but the argument can always be tested in an auction ring. We have improved our land so that it will support sheep that will carry more flesh. Why should we in Yorkshire and in England as a whole receive less justice under this Bill than those in Scotland. I hope the Minister will reconsider his decision.

445 p.m.

Mr. Snadden: I should like to say a few words in case anyone should imagine that we in Scotland are to get away with 100 per cent. under this Bill. I think the Minister's fundamental difficulty is that he is up against the very acute difference between Scottish physical conditions and those obtaining in England and Wales. That is a very good argument why we should have a separate Scottish Bill and

why our friends South of the Border should have a definition applying to their particular regional circumstances. It is quite true that in Scotland our problem is much simpler. We have our sharp pointed hills with their black faced sheep, the round ones with the Cheviot sheep, and their crosses breed quite the best sheep in Britain. The buyers come up from my hon. Friend's county and take them back to feed them off the pastures of Yorkshire. I feel that quite apart from the difficulty in getting a definition— which could be done only by Regulation which itself would be difficult—I think the right hon. Gentleman should take into account this question of identifying cattle with the hill farm. I happen to be connected with what is, I imagine, perhaps the largest enterprise of its kind in Britain today owning many sheep farms and thousands of sheep, and we look upon our cattle as part of our sheep economy. Since we have increased the head of our cattle we have increased the stock carrying capacity of our sheep because they bring the pastures for the sheep to eat. Sheep and cattle go together and cannot be separated, as my hon. Friend has said. I have talked about this business of cattle in the hills in this House for the last 10 years. The object is to increase the stock carrying capacity of sheep and at the same time preserve or supply a reservoir of cattle from the hills down below. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree to insert these words, in order to identify cattle with the Bill, because cattle, to my mind, are just as important as sheep.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for his explanation. I cannot say that it convinced either me or my hon. Friends. After all, the Bill is experimental, and time will show. We have not convinced the Minister by our arguments, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 3.—(Contents, submission and approval of improvement schemes.)

Mr. Baldwin: I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, at the end, to insert:
Provided that where the person responsible for doing the work is the tenant in occupation of the land on which the work is to be done and the work consists solely of one or more of the improvements comprised in


Part 11 of the First Schedule to this Act every person having an interest in the said land shall be under obligation as aforesaid notwithstanding that he shall not have joined in submitting the scheme or consented to the approval or variation thereof.
The next Amendment on the Paper -in page 4, line 14, after "and," to insert:
where it is requisite that any person should have joined in submitting a scheme or should have consented to the approval or variation thereof,"—
and four other Amendments in my name at the end of the Amendments to the First Schedule, are all interrelated with the Amendment which I am now moving. The object I have in mind is to improve the First Schedule, and so improve the usefulness of the Bill to the hill farmer. We want to bring the Bill into line with the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, which is concerned with improvements which the tenant farmer can claim at the end of his tenancy. In Part I of that Act, major improvements are included, and the permission of the landlord is necessary before the improvements can be executed. In Part II, drainage is included, and notice to the landlord is necessary. Part III deals with minor improvements and matters such as artificial manuring, liming and so forth.
We think the Bill would be improved if the Schedule were divided into two parts, the first part to deal with major improvements to which the landlord should obviously be a party, and the other to deal with minor improvements in which we do not think the landlord should have any interest For instance, it seems rather trivial that before a scheme of manuring or liming, or for the removal of boulders, can be carried out, the landlord has to enter into the scheme. We feel therefore that the Schedule might well be divided in a way that would cut out the landlord from the small matters. It would help the working of the Bill and help the farmers to get their schemes through without having recourse to the landlord.

Mr. Vane: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think it will be welcomed by hill farmers, and in particular by small tenant farmers. The practice has grown up in this country, as a result of long experience, that certain improvements relating to the equipment of the land are normally

provided by the landowner and that others, relating to the routine operations of farming, are normally carried out by the occupier of the farm entirely upon his own initiative. In the Schedule appended to tile Bill, the items fall clearly into two parts. I cannot see any advantage in trying to relate the landlord to improvements such as the putting on of artificial manure, which is normally the tenant's job. In addition to that, as the Minister must give his consent before any such scheme is approved, I cannot see that any landlord could complain if he were not asked to give his consent in such cases.
For my own part, speaking as the owner of certain hill farms, I do not in the least wish any tenant to have to come to me or to my agent and to ask our consent before putting forward any scheme of that kind. If he chooses to come and discuss the matter with us, well and good, but the very last thing I should wish to see in the Bill is an extra burden suddenly put on him such as is not imposed upon the tenant in the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, with which we are all familiar. I welcome the emphasis which the Minister put upon cooperation. Throughout the Committee stage he mentioned repeatedly that he wished cooperation to be the basis for the working of the Bill. He must realise in this case that it is not cooperation which is being asked for, but an unnecessary additional obligation upon the farmer. I wish the Minister would accept the Amendment, and divide the Schedule into two, and so free the tenant from the burden of having to go to his landlord for improvements which are really nothing more than routine farming operations.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Collick): It is clear from what has been said that hon. Members opposite misconceive the purposes of the Clause. They assume that the Bill sets out to alter the Agricultural Holdings Act. It does not attempt to do anything of the kind. The point of the Amendment, and particularly of the reference to improvements and the proposed dividing of the Schedule into two parts, is to bring the Agricultural Holdings Act into this scheme in a way not at all intended by the Bill. We must understand that there are two rights and two parties involved in improvement schemes. There is the right of parties to do any-


thing on land subject to the ordinary law, and the right of tenants under the Agricultural Holdings Act to obtain compensation on the termination of their tenancies for having lawfully carried out certain kinds of improvement. The only part of the Bill which has regard to the Agricultural Holdings Act is Clause 8. Nothing preceding it has anything to do with the Agricultural Holdings Act.
The whole scheme for improvements foreshadowed in the Bill is essentially voluntary. In no sense is it intended to interfere with the rights of either party. The Amendment proposes that we should alter those rights and forfeit the essential, basic, voluntary principle of the schemes. We have accepted that principle, which runs right through the Bill, and it would be wrong for us to alter it or to make adjustments in it in any way. The Amendment is therefore unnecessary. The question of obtaining consent to the carrying out of improvements for the purpose of obtaining compensation under the Act does not arise. I therefore ask the House not to accept the Amendment.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary has put the position quite clearly. Perhaps the Minister would help us to elucidate it. There may not be a great issue between us. He will see. at the bottom of page 3 of the Bill:
or consented to the approval thereof.
It struck most of us who are not muddled up with the Agricultural Holdings Act and compensation—an entirely different point — that those words mean that the landlord would have to give his consent or approval if a tenant wished to carry out a scheme for reclaiming waste land, laying down permanent grass, liming, or fulfilling any other minor obligation of the tenant. If that were so that would be a great hardship on the tenant. It would not be a hardship on the tenant if he had a good landlord who lived near, but it might well cause great inconvenience to him in cases where the landlord was some distance off, like the landlord of a public company or corporation or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Then he would have to write up and get their consent. That is what we are trying to avoid. It is a very narrow point and it has nothing to do with compensation. Do these words:
or consented to the approval thereof

mean anything? Do they apply to a scheme where the landlord and tenant are both joined and also a scheme which is purely a tenant scheme? A matter of pest destruction, liming or reclaiming of waste land is entirely a tenant scheme and normally the landlord's approval would not have to be asked. No doubt it would be given but there would be delay. On the question of laying down permanent grass some landlords might object, but in my view, unless the tenant was bound to get the consent of his landlord by his farm agreement, it is wrong for the Government to impose a condition that a landlord should give his consent before a grant is given for the laying down of permanent grass. For these reasons, I hope the Minister will clear up the position a little more. There is a great advantage in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leo-minster (Mr. Baldwin) that the Schedule could be divided up between those which are landlord's obligations and those which are tenant's obligations. We are well acquainted with these matters in other agricultural legislation. If that can be done clearly, it will enable a tenant to go in for a scheme without getting the landlord's approval where it is purely the tenant's obligation.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 5.—(Revocation or variation of improvement schemes on ground of public interest.)

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 4, line 44, to leave out from "shall," to "consult," on page 5, line 1.
These words are now redundant as the result of the acceptance of the new Clause agreed to at the commencement of proceedings today.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Revocation or variation of improvement schemes on ground of bad work, delay, etc.)

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 5, line 26, to leave out "unduly," and to insert "unreasonably."
There are two consequential Amendments—in page 6, line 4, after "or," to insert "avoidably," and in page 6, line 8, to leave out "in the circumstances," and to insert:
as a result of the work being badly done or avoidably delayed.


This point was raised on the Committee stage. We pointed out that unfortunately we were finding that work was being very much delayed, especially building, in all parts of the country. Clearly, a lot of this work is going to be delayed. Drainage work which is supposed to take only three or four weeks goes on for months and nearly into years, owing to the difficulties of the present situation. Therefore, we ask that the word "unduly" should be altered and the word "avoidably" inserted later. The Minister said in reply that he regarded "unduly" as meaning "unreasonably." Therefore we thought that, as he understood these words to mean "unreasonably," it would be far better to have them in the Bill. I hope he will not be unduly reluctant about conceding this Amendment.

Mr. Snadden: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. T. Williams: I have no objection to accepting this rather long word, despite the paper shortage.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 5, line 34, to leave out "excessive," and to insert "unreasonably high."
This is a consequential Amendment.

Mr. Snadden: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 6, line 4, after "or," to insert "avoidably."

This Amendment is consequential.

Mr. Snadden: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. T. Williams: I am afraid my hon. Friend is mistaken here. I did not intend to accept this Amendment and I am sure Mr. Speaker did not intend that it should be called either. As a matter of fact, now that it has been moved, I have to remind my hon Friend that the word "delayed" in line 4 refers back to the wording at the opening of the Clause and consequently bears the same meaning, unduly or unreasonably delayed, if the preceding Amendment, which has been accepted, was accepted. Therefore, there is no necessity for the Amendment now moved by the hon. Member.

Mr. Turton: In view of that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 7.—(Requirements, in connection with improvement schemes, as to observance of rules of good husbandry, etc.)

Mr. Collick: I beg to move, in page 6, line 18, to leave out "neighbouring," and to insert "contiguous or adjacent."
This Amendment arises as a result of further consideration that was promised when this Bill was in the Standing Committee. Objection was there taken that the word "neighbouring" was too wide and too indefinite, and the Minister undertook to see if a more satisfactory word or phrase could be found. As a result of that consideration we think the words "contiguous or adjacent" better meet the position and I think the Amendment will be acceptable on all sides of the House.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: We are much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for meeting our suggestion upstairs.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Attachment of conditions as to letting, etc., of new and improved cottages.)

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I beg to move, in page 8, line 35, to leave out from "regulations," to "and," in line 38.
These words, in effect—and they were deliberately inserted for that purpose—prevent any grant being made towards the erection or reconditioning of a cottage if that cottage is going to be what is ordinarily known as a tied cottage. We had a certain amount of discussion on this upstairs and we on this side of the House believe that if this particular restriction on the liberty of the Minister to make grants for the reconditioning and building of cottages is retained, it will, in effect, destroy a considerable part of the value of the Bill. I am aware that the history of tied cottages is a thorny one, and that certain hon. Members opposite hold very strong views on this matter, but in this case of hill farming I would ask hon. Members to try to disabuse their minds of any prejudice they may have based on past experience, and to look at the problem with which we are actually faced.


We are trying to improve hill farming land, land which, by definition, is not capable of supporting sheep or cattle and which we believe, with improvements, should be capable. I do not need to go at great length into the reasons of this, or the reasons for the deterioration which this particular land has suffered within the memory of man, but it is abundantly clear that, if the efforts are to be successful and we are to get considerably increased head of stock on these lands, it is absolutely essential to have increased numbers of people to look after them. You will not get anyone in their senses— and in my submission you also ought not to ask the State—to make a contribution unless it is reasonably certain that that money will be fruitful for the purposes for which this Bill is being passed. It is quite clear that if the money is spent and then it is impossible to increase the head of livestock because you cannot get men to look after them, the Bill fails and the expenditure is wasted. Therefore, one of the cardinal issues of this matter is the provision of better and additional housing accommodation.
Hon. Members opposite seem to think that it is the duty of local authorities to provide additional living accommodation, not only in towns but also in the countryside. They may or may not be right, but it is abundantly clear that, in practice, local authorities will not, in view of the other calls on their energies, provide, and they cannot reasonably be expected to provide, the sort of accommodation required in the places where it will be required under this Bill. Hon. Members opposite, and many of us on this side of the House, think in general it is desirable that new cottages should be built as near as possible to existing congregations of persons near villages, but the whole essence of this problem of hill farming is that there are not villages anywhere near where the cottages are wanted. Therefore, by the very nature of things you are bound to put up a certain number some distance away, and possibly in what we in England and the home counties call isolated areas. If the local authorities do not do it, then the private individual ought to do it but, looking at it realistically, the private individual cannot be expected to sink a considerable sum of money upon which he will not get a full economic return

unless he can be assured that the necessary labour will be available. in tact, the only way he can be so assured is to erect what is known as a tied cottage, because if he erects a cottage under the terms of Clause 9 so that anyone can take it, once lived in, the cottage becomes subject to rent restriction and he is deprived of any kind of certainty that the cottage which he has been asked to build will subserve the interest of the particular scheme with which we are concerned.
5.15 p.m.
It may well be, perhaps not in Scotland but certainly in the less remote parts of England, that an individual cottage may be built in close proximity not only to one farm, not only to the steading which it is supposed to serve, but to several farms. It is clear, therefore, that the man who builds the cottage under the provisions of Clause 9 will not have any security at all that the man who occupies the cottage will not work for him for a week, a month or a year and then take a job with one of the neighbouring farms, and then he will be out of all the money that he has spent on building or reconditioning the cottage. What is worse he will be out, or his tenant will be out, of all the money he has spent on the scheme because, ex hypothesi, unless he builds another cottage he will not have the labour to look after the stock. Therefore, we get into a situation which is really ludicrous, and I ask hon. Gentlemen to forget for a moment whatever may be their objections in the past or in general to tied cottages, and to look at this problem from the point of view of what will happen to the individual scheme.
I do not want to go into it at great length, and I hope that the House will not feel it is necessary to have a full dress Debate on the theory of tied cottages; if so, then there is a great deal that can be said on both sides. All I am suggesting is that in this particular case of grants being given by the Government to fulfil a specific purpose of a specific farm in a specific area, unless we allow the landlord or the tenant or the owner-occupier to be certain, when he has spent all this money, that he will have a house in which he can be sure that his labour will live, then no one in their senses will undertake the work and the Bill itself, which otherwise I hope will be of great value and which we have spent so much time in discussing, will be of little or no value.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: When this Bill was presented first to the House in the early part of the year it did not contain this objectionable Clause which, as my right hon Friend has said, virtually nullifies the whole effect of the Bill. I regret very much, as he does and all hon. Members do on this side of the House, that the Minister should have given way to pressure within his own party, pressure exercised first from the ranks behind him and, later, at the Bournemouth Conference of the Socialist Party, and that he should on account of this pressure, have changed his mind and inserted this Clause. However, much as I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has so fallen from grace, I regret even more that the Secretary of State for Scotland should have so betrayed the interests of rural Scotland—where the problems are quite different in so many respects from those in England—as to have concurred in this surrender. But they are all in the same bed and "When father turns we all turn." [An HON. MEMBER: "How about Blackpool?"] When the Minister gives way to pressure, the Secretary of State must also yield.
I think it is agreed on all sides of the House that improved housing is very badly needed. I do not really think that would be argued about by anyone. If it were, we have only to refer to the two Reports which have been made on the hill farming position or, indeed, to quote the Cambridge Resolution at the Bournemouth Conference, which laid it down that it was necessary to ensure sufficient houses in the country. I will quote from the Balfour Report concerning the position in Scotland. On page 74, in paragraph 218, the Balfour Report says:
There must be better housing.
A little further down, in the next paragraph, it says:
Housing is probably at its worst … in the remoter sheep farming districts.
Another point which I think is accepted by everybody, is that the industry cannot afford this better housing in the sheep farming districts without help. Here I would quote again from the Balfour Report because I am speaking particularly of the Scottish position. In paragraph 128 it says:
The general condition of hill sheep forming in Scotland … provides a gloomy picture. The industry is not operating on an economic

basis … In a word, left to itself, hill sheep farming is a dying industry.
The Report goes on to recommend that subsidies should be continued, that they should be graded so that the more remote districts get higher subsidies, and that grants should be available for new houses.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to go into those much wider questions. This is really a narrow point, whether, as a condition of a grant in respect of the improvement of a cottage, it shall or shall not be permissible to prohibit the cottage being tied.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I bow to your Ruling, Sir. The point I was trying to make is that the effect of the Bill will be nullified if the houses which are built under the terms of the Bill are not available for letting to shepherds, who will be unable therefore to manage the hill farms. I will abandon the points I was trying to make, and deal specifically with that issue. It seems to me that to deny this measure of assistance will react hardly on the shepherds themselves, whose cottages under a more discerning and less incompetent Government would fall to be improved under the terms of the Bill, and that it will in many respects nullify the effect of the Bill.
I will quickly bring myself into Order by asking a specific question. If a scheme is proposed in a case where the housing is definitely bad in regard to a hill farm, will a grant for the remainder of the work be given? If so, the whole effect of that grant may be marred by the failure to attract labour because of the lack of cottages. If a grant will not be made, the whole purpose of the Bill, which is to facilitate the regeneration and rehabilitation of hill farming land will be defeated. If a grant is given for a cottage, and the farmer wants to dismiss the shepherd in that cottage, the employee might be able to get some more work locally. He might be able to get work in one of the development schemes in the district, or on the roads, or in some other way. But the farmer would be left with no alternative accommodation for his shepherd. When we discussed this point in Committee, the Joint Undersecretary for Scotland said that it would be all right as it would be open to the farmer to go to the courts for an eviction


order. But the farmer would be faced with the expense, inconvenience, and unpleasantness of going first to the agricultural executive committee to obtain a certificate to the effect that the cottage was necessary to the proper working of the farm. When he got that certificate, he would still have to go to the courts for an eviction order. If he were to get an order for possession, it is almost certain that the courts would give time to the tenant to find some alternative accommodation. What about the farmer during the whole of this time? That is the point to which the House should address itself. It is the point that goes to the root of the objection.
The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) spoke of a hill sheep farm in a glen with only one house which was obviously the only house in which the shepherd could live. What would happen to the farm and to the sheep while someone' who was not the shepherd was living there? The shepherd must be on the spot. That is essential at all times, but particularly in snowy weather. I deplore this attempt to introduce dectrinaire political considerations, when the sole consideration ought to be, in the words of the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill, to facilitate
the rehabilitation of hill farming land
throughout the Kingdom.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: The effect of accepting this Amendment, as the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) would be the first to appreciate, would be equivalent to deleting from the Bill the Clause which we accepted on the Committee stage and which was designed to ensure that grants should not be payable under the Bill for the erection of tied cottages. Whatever the arguments for or against may be, I certainly attach the greatest importance, both to the Clause and to this portion which the Amendment seeks to delete. The Clause has two objects, namely, to prevent the diversion to other uses than that of occupation by agricultural workers, or persons of like economic status, or cottages erected or improved by subsidies under the terms of this Bill, and secondly, to ensure, as far as practicable, that assistance given will not add to the number of tied cottages. That is the purpose, very simply stated,

but it would be much more difficult to translate into legislation, since the number of Acts to be dealt with occupy no fewer than 250 lines of the Statute Book. Therefore, the Regulation referred to in the Clause became a necessity. The argument for and against the tied cottage has been going on for generations, and I do not think that I ought to cover the ground again this afternoon. Hon. Members opposite take a certain view, quite rightly, because they believe they are right; hon. Members sitting on these benches very largely, if not wholly, take a totally different view. The simple point I want to put to the House is this: This Bill neither abolishes tied cottages nor does it create them. Therefore, it does not seem to me to be one of those burning questions that ought to disturb the even flow of the Debate which we have so far had this afternoon.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill does not create or abolish the tied cottage. But it abolishes individual ones. Any tied cottage that a man wants to recondition will cease to be a tied cottage if he accepts a grant under the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Williams: I quite agree. If a number of houses are reconditioned and the grant is obtained, from being service occupancies they will automatically become tenancies, and to that extent the number of so-called tied houses will be fewer. But, broadly speaking, this Bill does not set out to deal with the question of rent restriction control. That is a matter for the Minister of Health.
I have no power to deal with rent restriction law, and the most we are endeavouring to do is to see to it that once Government funds are made available either for reconditioning a house or for erecting a new one, those houses at least will come under ordinary rent restriction law. Take a single case. I would not carry the argument further than this: The hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) has just been submitting to the House that unless there is a house on the hill farm, labour cannot be attracted to that farm, and he asked what, with all this new grass, reseeding and the rest, is to happen to the sheep or cattle? I need only put him a similar question. Can he induce modern-minded young men and women to go on to the hillsides to occupy houses out of which


they may be turned, with their furniture, at any given moment. They may—I do not know. I would not argue the point lengthily, and I cannot argue it learnedly. It is, however, a two-sided argument.
I should have thought that so long as the Government are making available funds equal to 50 per cent. of the cost of reconditioning a house or of erecting a new house, for the farmer himself to charge the rent to the forthcoming tenant will be good business for the farmer, will not be bad business for the tenant, and the shepherd will be there to tend the sheep and cattle. If we were attempting, in this small Bill, completely to revolutionise the rent restriction law, that would be one thing, but we are doing nothing of the kind. We are merely insisting that where Government funds are made available for reconditioning, or for the erection of a new house, a tenancy must be created in every case. I think it is fair between landlord and tenant; I think that very likely there will be more happy and contented tenants in houses that are not tied in the old sense. Because of that I think it is a reasonable thing to do in a small Measure of this description, and not to interfere with the general law of rent control in this country.

Mr. York: The Minister said that this Bill neither abolishes nor creates tied cottages. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) has shown him quite clearly that that is not so. It will, in fact, reduce considerably, or at any rate to some extent, the number of tied cottages on farms. There is no argument about that. To that extent the Minister is changing the law of rent restriction. My real criticism of what the Minister has just said is contained in the fact that by maintaining this mandatory regulation—that is what it is—he will make quite certain that the improvement of cottages admitted to be necessary will be held up. The Minister shakes his head. Let us consider for a moment what his regulation does. The wider question of the economics of the hill farm do not need to be discussed at this juncture, but I think it will be admitted on all sides that the rental value, or to put it another way, the profitability of a hill farm is of such small dimensions that any large outlay of a capital nature or of an income nature, will have to be met in some way, either by an appre-

ciable rise in the amount of money which can be obtained from the produce of that holding, or from an increase in rent from the tenant.
In order properly to recondition cottages at the present high cost of building, a large sum of money will be needed. In addition to that, a large sum of money will probably be needed for the provision of modern amenities. I have very little doubt that when an owner-occupier, an owner or a tenant, comes to look at the figures of the money which he will have to find in order to carry out a scheme under this Bill, he will be frightened off the venture by the fact that the one really human improvement he wants to undertake will entirely upset the economy of his whole farm, and therefore may wreck the improvement venture he wishes to make to the land itself. It is no use our saying that we can spend unlimited money upon hill farms, because we know very well that there is a limited amount of income coming out of those farms. Therefore, unless some help is given to the owners or occupiers of those farms the man who will be most affected will be not the owner but either the farm tenant or the occupiers of the houses.
I know that I am knocking my head against a brick wall on this subject, but I say to the Minister that there is a middle way in this matter and that he would do a great service to the hill farming industry both in England and in Scotland if he could find a method of adopting that middle way. Instead of making this regulation mandatory, as it is at the present time, he could make is permissible. There are certain circumstances in which he knows now that no improvements can be made under the regulations as they will be made under this Clause. Perhaps there are a larger number of occasions on which the regulations will not have a deleterious effect, but in these two circumstances he may want to have a permissive power. If during the remaining stages of this Bill he will consider that sugestion, then this Debate will have been well worth while.
There is one anomaly which I would like to put to him. This morning in a newspaper I read of a wage earner somewhere in England who won the "penny pool." He netted £40,000. I hope that similar luck will fall in due course to some shepherd. Under this Bill, the owner or the owner-occupier of a farm, having spent


probably £1,500 in putting up a cottage to house this lucky shepherd, will find that shepherd far richer than himself in possession of his cottage. I wish that shepherd every success. I want him to win that £40,000. There are anomalies on both sides of the case which are equally as far-fetched as that. I mention that one because it is as far-fetched on the one side, as many of the cases advanced by hon. Members opposite are of the other extreme. If the Minister will consider my suggestion of a permissive rather than a mandatory regulation, I believe he will have done a great deal of good for the purpose we have in mind.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Harold Roberts: I think we all agree with the Minister when he says that there is no need to get hot about this matter, which can be discussed in quite a temperate way. I do not come into this discussion with any particular knowledge of agriculture such as is possessed by many of my hon. Friends who have already spoken. I venture to say a word from a rather different point of view, that of general legislation. When we have a Measure dealing with a certain matter, as a rule, if we try to draft something completely unrelated to it into the Bill, we get into a tangle. This is a Bill intended to improve agriculture and, as I understand it, it was brought in with no Clause in it similar to the one under discussion. Many Members of the Government party take strong exception to what may be called the common practice of agriculture, namely, the tied cottage. They did what they were quite entitled to do. They put pressure on the Government to introduce a Clause which would have the effect that agricultural practice would be varied and the tied cottage should not prevail. From their point of view that was reasonable, but from the practical or legislative side it was not very convenient. Without professing to be an authority on the law of rent restriction, and admitting that I have been to the Library to consult a book to refresh my memory, I wish to say a word or two on the matter generally.
I think we may say that the tied cottage—the cottage going with the job—has been the usual practice in agriculture up and down the country. Until 1914 it was really unimportant whether or not there

was a tenancy. In the first place, if there was a tenancy it could be terminated freely upon one week's notice, the man would have to go out, and he would have no answer whatever. The difference between service and tenancy only began to be important after the Rent Restriction Act of 1915. In passing, I should point out that this matter was not of great importance until the building of houses was killed by the Liberal Government with the assistance of the Labour Party of that time in the years 1909 and 1910. Building was killed by Liberal and Socialist legislation, and then this point cropped up. We find that the Government, faced with the desire that something should be done, have adopted this course, and the condition will be that only the landlord or a tenant may live in a house. I thought that the Minister at one stage of his remarks was referring to the unfortunate practice which we all deplore of these cottages being diverted for use by week-end people at high rents. I do not know whether he had that in mind though he gave that impression. I entirely agree with him on the point of policy but when one comes to work out the meaning of this Clause, it does not have the effect which he suggested. It has one or two rather strange effects. This is a cottage which we must assume probably has never been let at all. I see nothing whatever in this Clause to prevent the landlord from fixing whatever standard of rent he wishes to impose. That would be a standard rent in law. It is not a very convenient thing for an agricultural cottage to be fixed with a standard rent at a high figure.
We are told that the landlord will have no real grievance because he can go to the courts after securing a certificate from the war agricultural committee, and get the tenant out. He can do that if he can show that it is wanted for agriculture; but under the Rent Restrictions Act a certificate cannot be granted if it is shown that the tenant who has been working for this landlord is still employed in agriculture by another farmer. That is not necessarily a bad thing because the man is still working in agriculture. However, one has the practical consequence that landlords are far less likely to undertake schemes of rehabilitation when they have to face trouble of that kind. The majority take the view that there is enough trouble in life without looking for more. If the object of this Measure is to see that hill


farms are rehabilitated on loan, any expression of this kind which is designed to alter general or farming practice is inappropriate. If farming practice is to be altered, it is better that that should be done as a matter of policy and general law and not in this way by a side wind affecting a small class of cases. Better still, it ought not to be undertaken by a Clause hastily introduced in response to pressure, a Clause which does not do what it sets out to do.

Mr. Gooch: When the Bill was issued in its amended form, I ventured to put down an Amendment designed to eliminate the Clause in question. Much to my surprise, I found that my name, with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass), was tacked on to the names of four hon. Members opposite. There is not the slightest collusion between us two and our hon. Friends opposite. What is more, I am afraid that what I have to say in support of the Amendment will be along very different lines from the arguments advanced on the Floor of the House. The Labour Party has declared itself against the tied cottage in agriculture again and again. I am glad that hon. Members opposite have stressed the question of the tied cottage, because it gives me the opportunity to follow along that line and emphasise points which have been made by my hon. Friends who sit on this side of the House. At conference after conference of the Labour Party, the evil of the tied cottage has been denounced. It really is today part of the accepted policy of the Labour Party, and I want to express my very great regret that the Minister should attempt, through this Bill, not only to approve the continuance of the tied cottage system, but encourage more tied cottages to be built, and built at public expense. I am strongly of opinion that the creation of a tenancy does not meet the position. This Party on this side of the House is no longer a purely industrial Party.

Mr. T. Williams: I do not know if I understand my hon. Friend rightly, but I thought I heard him say that he regretted that I was about to increase, under the terms of this Bill, the number of tied cottages. If that was the observation, I can only say to my hon. Friend that I am afraid that he is mistaken, and that, in fact, instead of there being more tied

cottages, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. K. S. Hudson) said, to the extent that any house is reconditioned, there will be fewer and not more.

Mr. Gooch: With all due respect to what the Minister has said on this point, the two main points about which I am really concerned are not altogether questions of creating tenancies on a farm, but concern that the Minister should give a tenant the protection of the Rent Restriction Acts and that he should insist upon proof that alternative accommodation is available before that cottager can be dispossessed. I repeat with very great confidence that, by this Clause in this Bill, the Minister is actually encouraging the creation of more tied cottages, and at public expense.
All of us on this side of the House who have any knowledge of agriculture at all, and those of us who sit for purely rural Divisions, as many of us do, gave very definite pledges at the last Election that, if the people would send us to Parliament, we would abolish the tied cottage, and, as far as this Party is concerned, I do not think there was any elector in any rural Division at the last Election who had any doubt in his mind whatever as to where Labour Party candidates stood when they were talking about the tied cottage. The tied cottage in agriculture is a system which the farm workers have learned to dread for years, and the introduction of this Bill, bringing in, at the same time, provision for the creation of more tied cottages, is, as far as the purely rural Divisions are concerned, the breaking of that pledge, which we, in the name of the Party, gave to the electors in our Divisions.
It has been said again and again that the Englishman's home is his castle. I think we must add to that "except in rural England," and those of us who spend the bulk of our time in the countryside know very well that the tied cottage system acts harshly, not only upon the man himself, but upon his wife and children. We know very well that, even with the protection of the Clause which the Minister moved in Committee, it is possible for any farmer in the land who possesses one of these cottages to secure the eviction of a man just as easily as it has been up to now. We know that he and his goods, his wife and family, may very quickly be flung out on to the road


without warning, and we say, and we have been saying for some years now: "Why should the farm worker be the man to whom such treatment is meted out, when similar treatment is not meted out to the occupants of any other type of cottage?" I want to refresh the memory of the Minister by reading—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry but I do not think we can have a Debate on the whole question of the tied cottage. This is a much simpler point—merely whether there should be a right of prohibition in regard to this particular grant —and I am afraid I must restrict the hon. Member to that point. I have, in fact, given him a great deal of latitude.

Mr. Alpass: With all respect to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, hon. Members opposite have ranged over the whole problem and dealt with the tied cottage.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I think it will be within your recollection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that of the House that, when I moved the Amendment standing in my name, I was at great pains not to deal with the principle, but was limiting myself to specific cases of hill farms. Should the Debate go wider now, I hesitate to think at what time we shall rise.

Mr. Gooch: Some of us introduced the question of doctrinaire Socialism in connection with this matter, and I suggest very definitely that the question of the abolition of the tied cottage in agriculture is not doctrinaire Socialism.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is certainly entitled to make that remark and to answer the Opposition in that way, but he is not entitled to go into the whole question of the tied cottage. This is a much more limited question, and we cannot have a full-dress Debate on the question of the tied cottage on this limited Amendment

Mr. Gooch: I am very sorry about it, because I had expected, when I saw the Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of hon. Members opposite, an opportunity, not only to reply to some points they made, but to say that I strongly object to the inclusion of this Clause, and to bring, in support of my argument, the fact that, over and over again, the Labour

Party, at conferences all over the place, have been on my side. If you now rule, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I cannot discuss the tied cottage, I must resume my seat, but I wish you had allowed me a little more latitude.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry but the hon. Member is not entitled to go into the whole gamut of the advantages or disadvantages of the tied cottage. Mr. Alpass.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Alpass: We support this Amendment from an entirely different angle from that of hon. Members opposite. We support it because we have had expert opinion—as the National Agricultural Workers Union obtained an opinion from one who is regarded as one of the higher legal authorities in the country—and we are not satisfied that the conditions we desire for these farm workers will be secured under this Clause. If this Clause is adopted, a farmer who wants to get possession of a cottage which is let under a tenancy can go to the war agricultural committee and get a certificate to the effect that the cottage is wanted for the cultivation of the farm. Armed with that certificate he can go to the court and need not prove to the satisfaction of the court that reasonable alternative accommodation is available. We say that that state of affairs acts very detrimentally to the interests of the agricultural worker. It is a special privilege which is given to no other section of industry, and we suggest that, as other industrial occupations can be carried on successfully without such privilege, so could agriculture if farmers and others concerned were to concentrate on, and to apply themselves to, the problem.
I am not surprised, of course, at what I would call the "parental solicitude" of the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) for seeing this Bill made law. We on this side of the House know the reason for that. He suggested that there would be difficulty in getting men to live in these places. What is one of the real causes for the lack of labour in agriculture today? It is the fact that men will not go into a cottage where they will be deprived of freedom and where there will be no security. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that their attitude on this question is in conflict with the statement made the other day


by the Leader of the Opposition in a characteristic speech at Blackpool. One of the phrases he used was that one of the objectives of the Tory Party was to remove restrictions on freedom. I suppose it is a now objection, because I have never heard of it being implemented by them when they were in power. The attitude adopted by the Tory Party this afternoon with regard to this question is directly in conflict with that objective. What freedom is there, in the accepted sense of the word, for the farmworker who knows that at the whim and caprice of his employer his employment can he terminated and that in a very short while he and his family can be turned out on to the roadside? It is no good saying this sort of thing does not operate. Since 1942, 5,000 certificates have been granted by war agricultural committees in this country.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: How about hill farming?

Mr. Alpass: The same thing would apply there, and in nine out of ten cases an order for possession has been granted. My reply to the right hon. Member for South-port is that we shall find it increasingly difficult to get men to go and live in these isolated spots. Their wives and families rightly demand that there shall be some kind of social amenities provided for them. We suggest that, rather than ask men to go to these out of the way places, the houses should be built in villages or little groups.—[Laughter.]—I would point out to the right hon. Member for South-port that we listened to him with very great respect. This is not a laughing matter for the man who is subject to be turned out of his home, as many have been. It is a very serious matter. We suggest that the farmer should provide the workman with means of transport to and from his work and that his family should live in a community where they may enjoy the amenities they so badly need.
I will conclude by saying that we took this course in reference to this Amendment because we felt that the Amendment with regard to the alteration of and addition to one of the Schedules would be regarded as consequential and might be ruled out of Order. We hope to have an opportunity of elaborating our point when we come to that particular part of the Bill. We demand that no farm worker

shall in any circumstances be evicted from his house unless reasonable alternative accommodation is provided for him, and that the judge in the county court shall decide whether the greater hardship rests on the man to be turned out or on the farmer who may have to put up with some inconvenience which he can, if he likes, easily overcome. I do not wish to elaborate this matter any further, nor do I wish the Minister to misunderstand our action or motive in regard to this Amendment. We have been advised on the highest authority that this Clause, which I believe was put down with the best of intentions, does not meet the situation. It will still leave the farmer the opportunity of going to the court and getting an order for possession. We hope that we shall have more latitude when we come to discuss the application, by moving an addition to the Schedule.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope the House is now willing to come to a decision.

Mr. Baldwin: I very much regret that politics have come into this question. Whatever the decision come to, this question will not affect hon. Members either on the opposite side of the House or on this. The man who is going to suffer is the farm workman.

Mr. Gooch: He suffers now.

Mr. Baldwin: Not very badly. This is a matter which should not have been debated on a Hill Farming Bill; it should have been left for some other occasion. The two prime movers who put pressure on the Minister to bring in this Clause do not, so far as I know—I stand to be corrected—represent one single hill farm. Therefore, I maintain—

Mr. Alpass: If I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman for a moment, I would point out that, although my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Gooch) may not have any hill farms in his constituency, he is the president of the largest agricultural workers' union in the country, with a membership of 120,000, and I am sure everyone will admit he has authority to speak for them.

Mr. Baldwin: We are not discussing the farm labourers' union; we are discussing the question of whether cottages shall be built and reconditioned on the hill farms of England, Scotland and Wales. It is a matter of great regret that this heated


argument about tied cottages has been brought into the Debate. There will be a future opportunity for debating that point when we can thrash it out better than on this occasion. This agitation is really aimed at the big landlords. I say that the big landlords are not affected by this question.
The tenant farmer and the owner occupier will sometimes be affected, but the farm worker will always be affected. What is the result of this Clause? I do not agree with those who have said that certain tied cottages will be done away with under this Bill, because I am certain that no owner of a cottage will be simple enough to recondition that cottage if it means that he has not got control of it, neither will any new cottages be built if it means that the builders of those cottages have not got control of them. Therefore, the people who will suffer are the working men who want to go into these reconditioned and new cottages.
On the Second Reading of the Bill, the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) stated that people should not be turned out on to the roadside with no alternative accommodation. That might happen in a few cases, but in how many cases has that position arisen? If we are to create this legislation and get this prejudice in order to deal with one or two possible hardships, we shall create a great many more hardships for these people. The answer to the tied cottage is for the Minister of Health to build alternative accommodation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That question again does not arise here. The only question is whether, where a grant is made, a condition may be made in regard to the type of occupation. That is really the only question before the House at the moment.

Mr. Baldwin: I am sorry if I have gone off the rails. I would like to mention the position existing in two counties which adjoin mine, represented by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins). During the Debate upstairs he said that out of 2,000 holdings in Radnorshire only ten were of over 1,000 acres. That means that practically the whole of the hill farmers in Brecon and Radnor are comparatively small farmers, and if this Clause is left in its present form in the Bill not one of those farmers will be able to recondition or build a cottage.

They will not be in a financial position to do so, and they would be much more foolish than I have ever found them to be if they were to recondition their cottages and then find out that they had not got control of them.

Mr. Paget: Surely that is not so. A great many of these cottages are tenancies already. Not by any means all, and probably not even half of the agricultural cottages are service occupancies. Many are tenancies already, and the only difference between a tenancy and an occupancy will be that in the former case it will take a farmer a little longer to get his cottage if the man leaves his employment.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: The small owner occupier in the counties that I have mentioned will be deprived of the opportunity of doing up their cottages and making them fit to live in. That applies to the great majority of hill farmers in England as well. They are mainly small farmers and they will be deprived of the opportunity of getting their men into the cottages. It has been said that the farm labourer does not want to live in one of these tied cottages. Would a farmer be foolish enough to recondition or build a cottage if he was not perfectly satisfied that he would get a tenant to go into it? I ask hon. Members who disagree with me to say how many tied cottages there are today which are not occupied by farm workers. In my own district we have council houses which were built for farm workers under the recent Act. Our tied cottages are occupied by farm workers, but the council houses are not. The reason is that if they go into the council houses they have to pay 13s. or 14s. a week, and they can go into the tied cottages for 3s.
I deplore the fact that political bias has entered into this Debate because I had hoped that if we kept heat out of the argument the Minister might have been prepared to reconsider his decision. Under the circumstances I am afraid that he will not do so. But I do ask him at this late stage to reconsider this point and in the Schedule to divide the reconditioning of cottages from the erection of new cottages. That will give those farmers who own cottages which require reconditioning the opportunity of doing them up, and they may still remain tied, but there should be conditions similar to


those laid down in the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, namely if the owner of a reconditioned cottage sells it within so many years he has to refund the money and he is restricted as to the amount that he can charge for it. I think the farm workers would be protected and hon. Members opposite would feel satisfied that

the money spent by the State would not go into the pockets of the landlords.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 124.

Division No. 283.]
AYES
6.18 p.m.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGovern, J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Mack, J. D.


Allighan, Garry
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Attewell, H. C.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McKinlay, A. S.


Awbery, S. S.
Fairhurst, F.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Ayles, W. H.
Farthing, W. J.
McLeavy, F.


Bacon, Miss A.
Follick, M.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Baird, J.
Fool, M. M.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Balfour, A.
Forman, J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Barstow, P. G.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Barton, C.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Battley, J. Ft.
Gibbins, J.
Mathers, G.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Gibson, C. W.
Medland, H. M.


Benson, G.
Gilzean, A.
Messer, F.


Berry, H.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Beswick, F.
Goodrich, H. E.
Mikardo, Ian


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A, (Ebbw Vale)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R,


Binns, J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Monslow, W.


Blackburn, A. R.
Grenfell, D. R.
Montague, F.


Blyton, W. R.
Grey, C. F.
Moody, A. S.


Boardman, H.
Grierson, E.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bottomley, A. G.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morley R


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Morris P (Swansea, W.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lowisham, E.)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Guy, W. H.
Mort, D. L.


Bramall, Major E. A.
Haire, Fit.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Moyle, A.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hale, Leslie
Murray, J. D.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Nally, W.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Naylor, T. E.


Brown, W. J (Rugby)
Harrison, J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Buchanan, G.
Henderson A. (Kingswinford)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Burden, T. W.
Herbison, Miss, M.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Burke, W. A.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hobson, C. R.
Oldfield, W. H.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Holman, P.
Oliver, G. H.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Orbach, M.


Champion, A. J.
Horabin, T. L.
Paget, R. T.


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Hubbard, T.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentwoth)


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Cluse, W. S.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, J.


Cocks, F. S.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Coldrick, W.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pearson, A.


Collick, P.
Janner, B.
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Collindridge, F.
Jay, D. P. T.
Perrins, W.


Collins, V. J.
Jager, G. (Winchester)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Jager, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)


Comyns, Dr. L.
John, W.
Popplewell, E.


Cook, T. F.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Porter, (Warrington)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Proctor, W. T.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Keenan, W.
Pryde, D. J.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Kenyon, C.
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Corvedale, Viscount
Kinley, J.
Randall, H. E.


Crawley, A.
Kirby, B. V.
Ranger, J.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Rankin, J.


Daggar, G.
Layers, S.
Rees-Williams, D. R


Daines, P.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Reeves, J.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Leslie, J. R.
Richards, R.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Levy, B. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Deer, G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Scollan, T.


Diamond, J.
Logan, D. G.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Dobbie, W.
Longden, F.
Segal, Dr. S.


Dodds, N. N.
Lyne, A. W.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Donovan, T.
McAdam, W.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Dumpleton, C. W.
McAllister, G.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Durbin, E. F. M.
McGhee, H. G.
Shurmer, P.




Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Thomas, John B. (Dover)
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Simmons, C. J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Skeffington, A. M.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Skinnard, F. W.
Thurtle, E.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Tiffany, S.
Wilkes, L.


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Timmons, J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Tolley, L.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Smith, T. (Normanton)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Snow, Capt. J. W.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Sorensen, R. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Soskice, Maj Sir F.
Usborne, Henry
Willis, E.


Sparks, J. A.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Stamford, W.
Walkden, E.
Wilson, J. H.


Stephen, C.
Walker, G. H.
Wyatt, W.


Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Yates, V. F.


Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Warbey, W. N.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Stross, Dr. B.
Watson, W. M.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Stubbs, A. E.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Zilliacus, K.


Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Weitzman, D.



Symonds, A. L.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
West, D. G.
Mr. Bing




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Aitken, Hon. Max.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Osborne, C.


Allen, Lt-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
Haughton, S. G.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Pole, D. B. S. (Oswestry)


Barlow, Sir J.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Raikes, H. V.


Baxter, A. B.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Reid, Rt. Hon J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Jennings, R.
Renton, D.


Birch, Nigel
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Keeling, E. R.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Bowen, R.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bower, N.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ross, Sir R.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. C. T.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Linstead, H. N.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Byers, Frank
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Scott, Lord W.


Challen, C.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Cot. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Snadden, W. M.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
McCallum, Maj. D.
Spence, H. R.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
MacLeod, Capt. J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Sutcliffe, H.


Digby, S. W.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Drayson, G. B.
Marples, A. E.
Touche, G. C.


Drewe, C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Turton, R. H.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maude, J. C.
Vane, W. M. F.


Duthie, W. S.
Medlicott, F.
Wadsworth, G.


Eccles, D. M.
Mellor, Sir J.
Walker-Smith, D.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Wheatley Colonel M. J.


Erroll, F. J.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
York, C.


Glyn, Sir R.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.



Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Mullan, Lt. C. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimston, R. V.
Nicholson, G.
Sir Arthur Young and


Gruffyd, Prof. W. J.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Major Ramsay


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H



Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Improvement of hill farming land subject to rights of common.)

Mr. Collick: I beg to move, in page 10, line 24, to leave out from "just," to "and," in line 25.

Mr. Speaker: I gather that this Amendment is really consequential on an Amendment which appears later, and

therefore it might be appropriate to deal with that Amendment also.

Mr. Collick: It is the fact that the next three Amendments standing in the name of my right hon. Friend stand together. While dealing with the Amendment which I have just moved I will also deal with the two following Amendments. In page 11, line 4, at the end, to insert:


(8) Where work under this section for making improvements consists of or includes the making or restoration of permanent fences, Subsections (1) and (2) of this Section shall have effect as if references therein to persons enjoying or claiming to enjoy rights of common over the land for the benefit of which the improvements are intended included references to persons occupying adjoining land, and as if, in relation to any such person, there were substituted, for the reference in paragraph (b) of the said Subsection (2) to rights claimed to be enjoyed, a reference to the adjoining land occupied by him "—
and, in page 11, line 4, at the end, to insert:
(9) Nothing done under this Section shall be treated as an admission of the existence or non-existence of an obligation on the part of a person occupying land adjoining land subject to rights of common of pasture to fence against animals on the last-mentioned land, or as to the extent of any such obligation.
These three Amendments are consequent upon an appeal that was made to the Government in the Standing Committee, that in the case where hill sheep farming land, and particularly common land, is concerned, provision should be made to enable owners of adjoining land to come into a hill farming improvement scheme which affects common land, particularly for the purpose of fencing, without altering in any way the rather complicated law which deals with fencing. That is the essential purpose of the three Amendments, which will enable that to be done, and will allow it to be done in such a way that in no sense is the difficult law of fencing and of common land altered in any way whatsoever. I think the terms of the three Amendments are generally acceptable to the House.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Turton: This is one of the occasions on which one can express very full gratitude to the Government for the way they have worked at this Amendment, and have produced one satisfactory to all commoners and to those whose lands adjoin commons. It is, as the Parliamentary Secretary says, a very complex question of law, this law of fencing commons; and I am satisfied that the words the Government are putting forward now will relieve the situation as far as it can be done.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 11, line 4, at the end, insert:
(8) Where work under this Section for making improvements consists of or includes

the making or restoration of permanent fences, Subsections (1) and (2) of this Section shall have effect as if references therein to persons enjoying or claiming to enjoy rights common over the land for the benefit of which the improvements are intended included references to persons occupying adjoining land, and as if, in relation to any such person, there were substituted, for the reference in paragraph (b) of the said Subsection (2) to rights claimed to be enjoyed, a reference to the adjoining and occupied by him.
In page 11, line 4, at the end, insert:
(9) Nothing done under this Section shall be treated as an admission of the existence or non-existence of an obligation on the part of a person occupying land adjoining land subject to rights of common pasture to fence against animals on the last-mentioned land, or as to the extent of any such obligation."—[Mr. Collick.]

CLAUSE 12.—(Schemes for subsidy payments in respect of hill sheep and hill cattle.)

Mr. Baldwin: I beg to move, in page 12, line 8, at the end, to insert:
(c) include in any schemes under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Subsection provision for the constitution of a tribunal to which any person aggrieved by any determination or decision of the appropriate Minister under this and the two following Sections of this Act may make representations and having power to make such recommendations to the appropriate Minister upon such representations as it considers expedient.
After the heat of the Debate on the tied cottages, I hope we may get the Minister in a reasonable state of mind in regard to this Amendment. The object of it is to give the individual the right of appeal from any decision by the appropriate Minister. I do not propose to put many arguments forward with regard to this because the arguments used upstairs in Committee on Clause 8 apply to this Amendment. Then the Minister, who was feeling, possibly, more reasonable on that occasion, accepted the Amendment, and gave the right of appeal from the decisions of the Minister. I hope that in this case he will again agree that the final decision should not rest with him, and that he should not be in an arbitrary position. In this country, so far, we have avoided dictatorship, and we have given, and hope to give, the right of appeal to any individual. I do hope, therefore, that the Minister will feel that in this case he can accept the Amendment and give the right of appeal to anyone who feels he is not satisfied with the decision taken by the Minister.

Mr. Snadden: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite wants this Bill to work as smoothly as possible with the cooperation of all concerned. There has been very little trouble in Scotland in regard to the payment of these subsidies. In the part of the country I know best I have investigated many claims where injustice had been alleged. I am bound to say that during the war there were few, if any, occasions where injustice was done; but there were some cases on the borderline; and as we know that such cases were very small in number, it would not seem to me to be a difficult thing to grant the right of appeal to the small number who will be affected under this Bill, so that we may get the maximum amount of cooperation from everyone, and so that the farmer will feel satisfied, if he has a grievance, that someone is to hear it.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): This question is one on which there was a sharp conflict of opinion upstairs. Hon. Members opposite took the view that, when a farmer is aggrieved by the decision of the appropriate Minister on any question of subsidy payment, the farmer with the grievance ought to have the right of appeal to an independent tribunal. We take the view that these subsidies, as I argued before, are, indeed, discretionary payments made by the Minister. The Minister is responsible. The Minister is fully responsible, and he has no right whatever to abdicate his responsibility and pass it on to any tribunal whatever. We took that view upstairs. We have considered the thing further since then. We are still of the view that to accept this proposal to set up a tribunal would be to abandon an established principle, which would involve reconsideration of the method of payment of all Government subsidies. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite share that view, but that is our view. We do not think, in the circumstances, that those who would not insist on tribunals being set up to consider aggrieved persons wanting every and any form of Government subsidy, would want to insist on acceptance in this case. We of the Government cannot accept it, I fear; and, for the reasons I adduced just now, and the rather longer arguments made upstairs, I hope that hon. Members

opposite will not feel disposed to press their Amendment

Mr. York: I am sorry that the Undersecretary has refused to consider this at all, because this is rather a different case from the normal Government subsidy. In the case of the housing subsidy, for instance, the facts are entirely on the table, and a very large section of the community can judge the rights and wrongs of those facts. But when one is considering whether or not hill sheep subsidies should be given, one is relating the subsidy to a decision on quite a different level: for this reason—that there is only a handful of men in each locality competent to make that decision. I doubt whether there is any hon. Member on the opposite side of the House who would come up to my constituency and decide this question. There is no blame to them. They have not that experience. It is purely a practical matter. Moreover, it goes further than that, because it deals with livestock. Again, when the war agricultural committee is discussing dispossessing a farmer, it is actual experience in the handling of men which leads the committee to their decision. But there, in a case of that kind of practical experience, there is an appeal. Here, we have the servants of the Minister, agents of the Minister, making a decision upon their personal opinion—I underline the word "opinion" —on a practical matter, and I submit to the Under-Secretary that that is an entirely different type of subsidy, from the normal subsidies given by the Government for other purposes.
It is for these reasons that I think he is failing to distinguish between subsidies paid on an opinion and subsidies paid on easily ascertainable facts.

Lieut. - Commander Joynson - Hicks: I wish to join in supporting this Amendment, not only for those reasons but on the question of principle. With increasing frequency during the past few years it has become the habit to insert in Bills this particular principle, whereby a Government Department under a Minister becomes the maker of the law, the judge of the law and the jury of the law, and it is a bad principle which I will continue to oppose wherever possible. In this particular case it is worse than usual. It is a case of which, I believe, the House should really take cognisance. As I understand the Under-Secretary, he


based his opposition to this Amendment on the ground that what he was doing was interpreting the principles of the Ministry's decision, but that is not so. What he is really seeking to do is to have the right of interpreting the facts—whether or not the facts of any particular case come within the principles laid down by the Minister governing the grant or not of a subsidy. I urge upon the House that questions in which a decision has to be taken upon the facts are primarily and essentially a matter for the courts of jurisdiction of this country. From time immemorial it is the duty of the jury to ascertain questions of fact, allowing the judge to deal with questions of law. Here the Government are seeking to grant the right of ascertaining facts to the Minister. They are putting into the hands of the Minister power to decide the facts of the case and to interpret the law as well. I maintain that that is a bad principle, and is carried to the worst possible length in this proposal.

Mr. T. Williams: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken has read the Amendment. If he has he will have noticed that there is no reference an it to judges. There is only a reference to a tribunal, which has no relation, necessarily, to either the courts or the judges. What I wanted to say to the House, however, is this: The hill cattle subsidy scheme has been in existence for three years, and there has been no demand for any such tribunal. The sheep subsidy has been in existence for five years, and there has been no appeal for a tribunal. It seems to me, therefore, that while there may have been an odd difference of opinion here and there between an applicant and those who made the recommendation to the Minister, the two schemes have run so smoothly as to warrant a continuation of the same methods in the Hill Farming Bill. I hope that no hon. Member will feel that there is any necessity in this case for a special tribunal for what after all has been a very smooth working scheme, actually since 1941.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 13.—(Recipients, and amounts, of subsidy payments.)

Amendments made:

In page 12, line 35, leave out "depastured," and insert "grazed."

In line 40, leave out "depastured," and insert "grazed."—[Mr. I. Williams.]

CLAUSE 20.—(Offences as to muirburn.)

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to move, in page 20, line 34, to leave out "five", and to insert "twenty."
This was one of the things at which the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland promised he would look between the time when we discussed it in Committee and the Report stage, and I am afraid that he has cither forgotten to look or his look has not led him in the direction in which we hoped it would. What we want to do here, and I am sure he is as concerned about this as any of us, is to find some deterrent against the commission of the offences laid down in Clause 24, offences against the orderly burning of heather—what in Scotland we call muirburn—in such a way that it is unlikely to cause damage to neighbouring properties. In Committee the Undersecretary said that a proprietor of an adjoining property was protected by reason of the fact that if anything happened, if some of these offences were committed, he had a claim at common law. There are however two points on that that I want to make quite briefly. The first is that in these cases there is always great difficulty in proving negligence, particularly in cases where fires are started in an irregular manner or are allowed to go on too late, when perhaps a high wind comes up and an adjoining plantation is fired. It is very difficult to prove negligence before the courts and bring it home to any particular party.
The second point is that a monetary sum, which might be awarded by the courts in damages, can never make proper compensation for the physical damage which might be done. With values as they are today, £5 is no sort of deterrent at all—for the matter of that, neither is £20, even though it is four times as large as the amount proposed by His Majesty's Government. In any case there seems to be a discrepancy between the maximum fine of £5 and the maximum imprisonment of 30 days. I do not know whether that is a proper relation, but it seems to me that a day's imprisonment should be worth more than a few pence over 3s. If there is to be a maximum imprisonment of 30 days, the


maximum fine in my view ought to be very much more than £5. It seems to me that this proposal is absurdly lenient. The £5 maximum fine will not deter even the most humble hill farmer, the poorest of them all, from ignoring the Regulations if he wishes to do so. It is for that reason that I move the Amendment standing in my name.

Lord William Scott: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so not because of any desire to inflict a larger fine on any individual guilty of these offences, but because to impose a maximum fine of £5 must suggest that those responsible for promoting the Bill regard the offences as of very minor importance. In the next line they offer the alternative or secondary punishment of up to 30 days' imprisonment, and this may possibly act as a greater deterrent than the £5 maximum fine, but I feel that if we are to get the monetary fine a little closer to the possible term of imprisonment we should do much better to increase the maximum to £20 and not leave it at the trivial sum of £5, which must suggest that the offence is not regarded as a very serious one. When one realises the immense amount of damage that can be done by carelessness, sometimes wilful carelessness, by allowing a hill fire to spread, I do not think we are inflicting a very great hardship on the community if we ask for the maximum fine to be increased from £5 to £20.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. G. R. Thomson): I have a great deal of sympathy with the point taken up by hon Members opposite, but there is a serious difficulty in the way of agreeing to this Amendment. The difficulty arises in this way. Under the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1908, and the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, a general scale is laid down prescribing periods of imprisonment in the event of non-payment of a fine. That is rather an inadequate and out-of-date scale, but there it stands. If a man is fined £5 and does not pay, he becomes liable to be imprisoned for a period between five days and 30 days. The usual practice is to impose the maximum. In the case of a man fined £20, the maximum would be 60 days, and so there is grave danger that a man who is fined £20 and

does not pay may go to prison for a longer period than a man who is regarded as having committed a serious offence which is considered to be too serious for a fine.
Another point is that the more the fine is increased, the greater is the risk that a man will not be able to pay, and so it seems to me that there is a real danger of unfairness. The real solution lies in a general amendment to the periods of imprisonment imposed for non-payment of fines, but that takes us way back to 1908 when the value of money was entirely different. This is not the proper opportunity to make any such alterations, and to attempt to do it piecemeal in Statutes as they come forward will not only create complications but give rise to a genuine risk of unfairness. Perhaps, in view of that explanation, those who proposed this Amendment would be prepared to withdraw it. As I say, I think it would raise complications and give rise to unfairness.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: In view of the not very satisfactory explanation which has been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 34—(Recovery of sums by Ministers.)

Mr. Maude: I beg to move, in page 23, line 30, to leave out from "recovered," to the end of the line.
Under Clause 34 we find that
Any sum recoverable under this Act by the Ministers or either of them may be recoverable as a debt due to the Crown or summarily as a civil debt.
What we wish to do is simply to leave the wording "as may be recovered summarily as a civil debt." It is probably within the recollection of the House that when we were discussing the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Act, 1946, we raised the question of what are called writs of capias. In the Bill, as it then was, these same words "be recoverable as a debt due to the Crown" were inserted, and we pointed out this to the House, if I may recapitulate the argument. I should like to preface the recapitulation by saying that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) described the modern use of writs of capias as having been hauled out for use by Tory Attorney-Generals. I very much hope that that


will make hon. Members on the other side of the House sympathetic with me, because I am in fact condemning them. It is an old procedure whereby the Crown, if they get a judgment for debt, are able to walk along a passage in the High Court of Justice and get a write of capias. This does not apply to Scotland, although why on earth the Scots should be immune and the unfortunate Welsh and more unfortunate English should be subject to writs of capias I do not know.
The effect of a writ of capias is simply this. Instead of a sheriff going along and selling up a hill farmer, he can seize his body and put him in gaol, where he remains at the will of the Treasury. I conceive that to be a really wicked and evil thing which should not be increased in any shape or form. At the time when we were attacking writs of capias we had no assistance from the Law Officers of the Crown, probably because they were busy in other places, but the interesting thing, which no doubt was the result of those attacks, was that in another place these words were taken out. If we look at the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Act as it was accepted, the Crown was apparently satisfied that it was not necessary to have these words "recoverable as a debt due to the Crown."
As a result of a question which was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Quintin Hogg), some figures were given which may help to show that this thing really is tiresome. It was stated that the two departments which were using writs of capias were the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. It was pointed out that they were used in respect of fraudulent persons who were trying to defraud the Inland Revenue, for whom no one holds any brief, and by Customs and Excise in respect of Purchase Tax cases. In the year 1942 Customs and Excise took out seven of these writs. In the year 1943 they evidently became keener on them and took out 18. In the year 1944 they took out 21, and in the year 1945 they took out 36, when apparently their appetite had been whetted in some way. The figures for imprisonment are for 1942, three persons; for 1943, two; 1944, two; and for 1945 no less than 14.
Hon. Members will understand that what happens is that it is at the will of the Treasury how long a person stays

there. I do not pretend for a moment that they do not inquire carefully into it and try to find whether a man really has the money, and perhaps keep him there a little longer to squeeze the whole amount out of him. Income Tax, Customs and Excise and Purchase Tax offences seem so different from what is happening under this Bill. This Bill deals with hill farmers from whom the Crown wants money. I deplore the idea that you want to pull people out of their homes, under a writ of capias, and put them into prison for debt. I believe that Members on all sides of the House think that imprisonment for debt is thoroughly bad unless carefully guarded by judicial procedure. If a writ of capias is put into execution, and you are imprisoned, it is not possible to appeal. What happens is that the judge gives judgment, the Crown gets its writ of capias, and apparently there is absolutely nothing you can do except pray or, by petition, persuade the Treasury that it would be more humane to let you out. I am not suggesting that this has anything to do with politics; I am trying to argue the matter temperately. Surely, it is sufficient to be able to recover the money under the Act summarily, as a civil debt. The anomaly between Scotland and England and Wales seems to be odious.
7.0 p.m.
I remember the Attorney-General once pointing out that penalties and imprisonment are not really important things. I quite agree that some sanction behind legislation is needed, but in matters such as this surely the knowledge that the money can be recovered in the same way that a citizen recovers his money should be sufficient. Members know that if they are owed money they can go to the court and get a judgment and that the debtor can be sold up, if necessary, in order to satisfy the debt. Why should the Crown, in circumstances such as this, have power to hold men and women, and imprison them against their will? I submit that this is really unnecessary. There was a strong precedent in the tremendously important Act, the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Act, where the Crown agreed that it was not necessary, and I submit that it is not necessary here.

Mr. Turton: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I hope I shall be able to reassure both the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Maude) and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who, respectively, moved and seconded the Amendment, that the proposal in the Bill involves no risk whatever of increasing the number of persons who may be imprisoned for debt. In so far as the argument of the hon. and learned Member has been directed against the practice of imprisoning persons for debt, I would say at once—if I may use a phrase which is coming into our vocabulary nowadays—that I could not agree with him more. I am so opposed to the practice of imprisoning people for debt as to be almost a crank in the matter, and it was no satisfaction to me to learn that in the last year for which statistics are available nearly 3,000 people were imprisoned for the non-payment of money, although, no doubt, not because they could not pay but because they would not pay. Of those 3,000 less than 0.2 per cent. were Crown debtors, who were proceeded against under the writ of capias,
On another occasion, the hon. and learned Member for Exeter directed some observations against the practice of issuing writs of capias, and drew a very harrowing picture of the position. It was, however, one which was wholly inaccurate and which, in any event, has no application whatever to this Clause in this little Bill. Firstly, debtors are, in practice, very rarely imprisoned under a writ of capias, even when such writs are issued. The proportion, taken over a period of years, in which imprisonment has followed the issue of a writ, is something of the order of two per cent. Secondly, only the two Departments, referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, make use of this procedure. I can assure the hon. and learned Member at once that it is not proposed to extend the procedure by way of writs of capias to any other Department. Contrary to the view put forward when the hon. and learned Member last raised this matter, the position is that the writ of capias is one that has been in constant use for a long period, and it has not been recently revived. I think the hon. and learned Member first suggested that it had been revived, and that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North

Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) took up that suggestion. It has been used over the last 20 years quite regularly. I have not traced it back further than that. I am assured that there has been no difference in regard to the practice. The only difference is that the extent to which it has been used has varied rather with the incidence of taxation. The Customs and Excise used it in connection with the Betting Tax, and when that went off they no longer had the same occasion to use it. It was used again in connection with the Purchase Tax. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue certainly used it as far back as the end of the last war, and the power to use it has been embodied in literally dozens of Acts of Parliament passed by Conservative Governments between the two wars, and, again, by the Coalition Government in the war period.
There is nothing novel about this. There are two Acts dealing with agriculture in which power of recovery of Crown debts is included, and one finds many Statutes in which what is a Crown debt is described as a Crown debt, and as being recoverable under forms of procedure which are applicable to Crown debts. I hope Members will feel satisfied that the provision that the sums of money should be recoverable as Crown debts is not in any way a novel one, and is in no way a departure from the existing practice.

Mr. Maude: In view of what the right hon. and learned Attorney-General has said, that it is not the intention of the Government to issue writs of capias, or apply such writs, we shall be quite satisfied, although we are not so certain as to what sort of Governments we may have in the future.

The Attorney-General: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Member. I am not suggesting for a moment that the procedure in regard to the recovery of Crown debts and other matters relating to Crown procedure may not require, at some date, a comprehensive review. I hope we shall have the opportunity of dealing with it some day, not piecemeal, but in a comprehensive manner, which will prevent other Governments from abusing this procedure.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I ask the Attorney-General, when that comprehensive review takes place, if he will consult with the Lord Advocate?

Mr. Maude: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 36.—(Provisions as to laying before Parliament of instruments made under this Act.)

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 24, line 5, at the end, to insert:
(b) any regulations made under the provisions of this Act relating to the imposition of conditions with respect to the occupation and maintenance of cottages.
This Amendment has been made necessary because of the inclusion of Clause 9 in Standing Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 24, line 7, at the end, to insert:
or an order varying or revoking any such order.
Under Clause 16 it is provided that the power conferred on the appropriate Minister to make an order prescribing the amount of hill sheep or hill cattle subsidy payment should be construed as including power to vary or revoke the order by a subsequent order. This Amendment merely provides that varying or revoking orders should also be laid before Parliament.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Collick: I beg to move, in page 24, line 11, to leave out "for controlling," and to insert:
made under the provisions of this Act relating to.
The reason for this is that paragraph (e) of Clause 36 (1) is defective in that it fails to provide for the laying before Parliament of the instrument by which Clause 17 varies or revokes existing regulations. The effect is that all regulations will come before the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Collick: I beg to move, in page 24, line 14, to leave out "for regulating or prohibiting," and to insert:
made under the provisions of this Act relating to.
The reason for this Amendment is almost exactly akin to that given of the previous one.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 24, line 15, to leave out the first "or," and to insert "and."
This Amendment is consequential upon the one we have just accepted.

Amendment agreed to

7.15 p.m.

FIRST SCHEDULE—(Improvements which may be included in schemes for rehabilitation of hill farming land.)

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 27. line 7, after "alteration," to insert "re-siting."
The Schedule, as at present drafted, so far as it concerns cottages, relates to the
erection, improvement or reconditioning of cottages,
and so far as it affects farm houses, relates to
alteration, enlargement or reconditioning.
During the Debate in Committee the Minister said:
The case for new farm houses as such is not nearly so strong as the case for the erection of cottages."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE D, 11th July, 1946, c. 254.]
With that I entirely agree. I hope that he will accept this proposal, not so that it may give any favour to the erection of farm houses, but so that farm houses can be treated at least not less favourably than cottages. I think that from the Debate which took place in Committee, I can expect sympathy for this Amendment from all parts of the House. If one looks on hill farms as they now exist and takes, first, the smaller farms, one finds that they are very frequently sited in what may have been quite a good place before wheeled traffic came into being and when goods to and from the farm were carried on pack animals and access was by means of a lane or across fields. They were sometimes sited to be near a spring. We find buildings many hundreds of years old which have had very little improvement done to them since they were built. Large farm houses are frequently far too large for modern conditions, particularly for modern fuel rationing. In addition, they have old cobble walls which it is impossible to alter, they are frequently damp, and very rarely have a damp-course. The result is that any work of alteration is going to be extremely expensive, and even when finished, often highly unsatisfactory. If, on the other hand, the Minister will accept this Amendment, he will often find that one can carry out a better job by rebuilding


a farm house on a new site and suited to modern conditions. The acceptance of this one word is not giving any particular favour to farm houses over and above cottages because it is always in the Minister's power to withhold approval to any scheme put up to him. I submit, however, that acceptance of it is going to improve the Schedule, and on many occasions will be the means of conferring very great benefit on farmers and more particularly on farmers' wives.

Mr. Turton: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would remind the House that unless we can get farm houses and cottages nearer to the amenities of today we are not going to get many people to stay on the hill farms. It is vital to get cottages and houses sited near electric light and good roads. I know that there is no disagreement in any part of the House on this. Presumably, many of these new cottages will be erected on the roads and will isolate the farmer and the farm workers, because the farmer will be on the old site up on the moor. It is not only the question of the farmer. The farmer's family is of vital importance. It is most important that these hill farm families should be brought up to where they can get easy access to the town, and where they can get modern amenities. For these reasons, I hope that the Minister will allow this small Amendment to be made in the Schedule.
It is meant to help him and to improve the Bill. At an earlier stage, he talked about agreeing with it and wanting to consider it in five years' time. That, I think, is rather delaying tactics. We want to get these hill farms improved now. I believe that we are going the wrong way about this whole question of the countryside. We want to tackle the rural areas first before we tackle the urban. We want to get people to stay in the hill farms, otherwise the whole balance of the agricultural industry will be destroyed, because there will not be the sheep and cattle coming from the hills to revitalise the agriculture down below.

Mr. T. Williams: In Committee, an Amendment was moved to insert the word "erection" before "alteration" in line 7, and following the Debate on that Amendment, it was withdrawn on my

promise that if, in the light of experience, it was felt necessary or wise to extend the Schedule to include the erection of farm houses then we would take steps to do so. This is a very ingenious Amendment to obtain exactly the same thing, namely, the erection of farm houses, as would have obtained under that previous Amendment. How could one re-site a house without erecting it on some other site? I am sure the hon. Members who moved and seconded this Amendment did not expect that would have slipped our notice. It is true that many of the farm houses on hill farms are not too good. It is equally true that there are far too few houses for shepherds and other employees. Therefore, we felt that if we wanted to attract young men on to hill farms, the first thing to do would be to erect houses for workers.
We have also made arrangements, in line 7 of the Schedule, so that a farm house can be altered, enlarged, or reconditioned. I think that is putting first things first, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). We know that on most hill farms there is a farm house, but on many hill farms there are no cottages for the employees. Therefore, I think it is right and proper that the Government should assist the landlord or the occupier to erect or to recondition decent cottages for their would-be employees, and to alter, enlarge or recondition the farm house as and when necessary. I repeat my promise, for what it was worth, that if in the light of experience it is found, when building becomes easier than it is at the moment, that an extension is really necessary so that we can increase the supply of meat from our hill farms, as I think we ought to do, this is one of the things which might be considered very seriously. In the light of that promise, I hope hon. Members will not feel disposed to press the Amendment to a Division.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill), I would like to say a word on this Amendment. I see that this Schedule applies to Northern Ireland. Only a week ago I drove through my constituency from the North about 70 miles down to Rostrevor in the South, through the Mountains of Mourne, where there are a great many sheep and hill farms. I saw


how had some of the cottages were and how inconveniently they were sited, I think it is fair to say, although I may be hauled over the coals by some of my constituents, that the children there have far more trouble in getting properly educated and getting to school than they do in any other part of the constituency. I think this Amendment is a reasonable one, and it would considerably help my constituents. I know that in England, Scotland and Wales farms are very large, but in Northern Ireland the average area of a farm is under 30 acres. Some of the hill farms are not very large, and the people who farm them are, comparatively speaking, very poor people. It would give a chance of better education to the children, and improve the conditions for the farmers and their wives, if the Minister could accept this Amendment.

Sir T. Dugdale: I ask the Minister to reconsider one point before this Bill becomes law. The Minister is a very experienced Parliamentarian. It is all very well for him to say now that he will see how we get on in a year or so, and consider then whether some amending Measure is necessary, but he knows very well that it is extremely difficult for any Minister in any Government to get Parliamentary time to carry a Bill through the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) said that no scheme could go through without the approval of the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) pointed out that in the countryside today rural amenities and good housing are of vital importance. I think that this Amendment ought to be included in the Bill so that, when the Bill becomes an Act, this provision will be there for the Minister to use, without his having to come to the House in a few years with further legislation which he might not find the Parliamentary time to put through. If the provision were in the Bill, he would be able to use it when building conditions improved. I ask him to reconsider the matter further.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Collick: I beg to move, in page 27, line 23, at the end, to insert:
12. Provision of grids designed or adapted to prevent the passage of sheep or cattle.
It is obviously necessary to have provision made in these schemes by which

grids can be covered. We discovered that the existing words in the Schedule would not allow this to be done, and for that reason I move this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to valuation of sheep stocks in Scotland.)

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to move, in page 27, line 45, to leave out "ewes," and to insert:
draft ewes (being the older ewes annually sold off the farm in accordance with the custom of the district).
The Second Schedule sets out in detail the rules which are to be followed by anyone who is valuing sheep stocks on farms taken over on a Whitsun day tenancy. This matter is a little complicated and confusing to a layman, and it is, therefore, all the more important that the rules should be worded as clearly as possible. What is intended is that the basis of the valuation of ewes and lambs should be the ascertained price over an average of three years of the older ewes and the wether lambs which are drafted off the land, and to that ascertained average price is added an additional amount in respect of the young ewes which are retained on the farm because of their increased productivity. The value of these draft ewes, therefore, becomes the foundation of the whole valuation, and it must admit of no misunderstanding. It seems to me to be clear that the word "draft" ought certainly to be inserted before the word "ewes". If that word is not inserted, one might have to deal with breeding ewes that happened to be sold off the land for some other purpose. If one inserts the word "draft", I quite admit that it might be argued that it is necessary that the word "draft" should be defined. Therefore, the definition of the word has been inserted—
draft ewes (being the older ewes annually sold off the farm in accordance with the custom of the district).

Mr. Snadden: I beg to second the Amendment.
I can see no reason why we should not have the wording of the Schedule made clear for everyone to understand. At the moment the wording does not seem to be satisfactory. I do not think there would be any objection in Scotland to the words which we wish to insert in the Schedule.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: In moving this Amendment the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) said that if we accepted the word "draft" it would have to be defined and that in the Amendment it had been defined in brackets. But surely it is clear to anyone who reads the Schedule that what we want to do is to provide that the arbiter will take into account the prices obtained for all ewes and lambs in the preceding three years, and not only those obtained for certain ewes and lambs—of whatever particular kind they may be or for whatever reason they may have gone forward to sale—while excluding others. The hon. Gentleman called attention to a particular category of ewe that might go forward and so alter the average price. When I saw the Amendment on the Order Paper I felt that he might have in mind that a tenant going out of a holding some three or four years hence might contrive to sell off ewes that would fetch a higher price merely for the purpose of putting up his average prices obtained so that the valuation for his bound stock could be higher. I can only direct the attention of the House to paragraph 5 on page 28 where the valuer is enabled to adjust, within the limits of 10s. upwards and downwards, the value to be placed on the stock having regard to the value of stock which may have appreciated or depreciated as the result of the categories of ewes that he has been sending forward to the sales in the preceding three years. I am aware that some people do not think that the words in the Schedule are all that they might be or that they make the position clear enough, but I can only repeat that it is clearly our intention that the price obtained for all ewes and lambs sold from a particular farm or from a particular stock in the preceding three years shall be taken into account by the valuer, and that can only be secured by leaving the words in the Bill as they are.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to move, in page 28, line 1, to leave out "sales," and to insert:
auction sales and at the graded sales of the Ministry of Food.
It seems to me that it is necessary to qualify the words in the Bill in this way. "Autumn sales" in the past has meant just the auction sales of sheep, but now, when we have sales under the auspices

of the Ministry of Food, it is necessary, I think, to make it clear in these Rules, which must be thoroughly understood by the valuators and arbiters, that sales of every kind are included.

Mr. Snadden: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I fully appreciate that the hon. Gentlemen who have moved and seconded this Amendment are earnestly and conscientiously attempting to improve the drafting of the Schedule, but I would ask them to believe me when I say that the auction sales, as referred to in the Schedule, are indeed auction sales of store sheep and sales of fat sheep to the Ministry of Food—both sales.

Mr. Snadden: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that "autumn" is intended to cover both auction and autumn sales?

Mr. Fraser: Yes. If we were to take in the words proposed by hon. Members opposite I think we should be particularising too much and might, indeed, get into difficulty at a later date were we to alter or discontinue the purchase of fat sheep by the Ministry of Food. In the circumstances, I hope the hon. Member will agree to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: In view of the explanation which has been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.35 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams): I beg to move, "That the Bill be read the Third time."
This Bill seems to me to have been hanging about the precincts of this House for years and years and years. At long last we have reached the Third Reading and I should like to express my thanks to hon. Members who have pursued this Measure through the Second Reading and Report stages, for whatever time may have been occupied I think there has been little or no politics running throughout the Debates. There may have been a difference of opinion here and there but little or no politics. This Hill Farming Bill is designed to help one of the most depressed sections of British industry. I am hopeful, therefore, now that the opportunity is to be available within a very short time, that there will be a ready response, that improvement schemes will be put up,


and that we shall see not only drains, fences, reseeding, houses and other things, but that we shall be able to provide ourselves with a little more meat in the years that lie ahead for our own insides than we have had for many years. It may be regarded as a very small approach to a very large problem but I think it is a start, and to the extent that there is a response on the part of those who occupy hill farms then I think Parliament, whatever the colour of the Government at any future date, will not hesitate to increase the amount of money made available under this Bill. I hope, therefore, that those hon. Members who have hill farms in their constituencies will be as helpful as they can in advising and guiding their constituents as to what they think they ought to do. Once the Third Reading is through, Parliament, as far as this House is concerned, will have done its share. It now, therefore, depends on those on the spot to respond to the opportunities given them. Although a small Bill I think it may be an extremely useful one and I look forward to its early passage through another place and to its rendering a small contribution to the wider aspect of agriculture as a whole.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Snadden: I should like to add a word on behalf of those hon. Members who sit on these benches and to ask another question or two which I hope may be answered before we separate. I must say that I regret very much that we did not have two separate Bills in connection with this very important hill farming legislation. After all, Scottish conditions differ in so many respects from those in England; they differ topographically, our system of tenure is different, and our climatic conditions are quite different. Therefore, I think it would have been a great improvement had we had two separate Bills so that our friends south of the border might have been able to get in a proper definition in regard to hill land in England and Wales. I hope on that point that the right hon. Gentleman may be able to do something about the insertion of the word "cattle" in the Bill.
The crux of this Measure is whether we can reasonably expect that the assistance offered under it will be taken advan-

tage of upon a sufficiently wide scale to arrest the vast deterioration of our hill lands alluded to by the Balfour and De La Warr Committees. I was always very doubtful about that, because the industry has passed through a tremendous depression. There is very little money in it. Unless some special credits are offered I am very doubtful whether proprietors and hill farmers will be able to meet even the 50 per cent. of the cost of schemes that they are asked to put up. I asked a question in regard to that point during the Second Reading stage of the Bill, but the Joint Under-Secretary for Scotland did not give me a reply. There is anxiety in the North on that point, and the farmers wish to know how they stand in regard to the Scottish Agricultural Mortgage Company's loans. They want to know whether they will apply to this Bill, and what rate of interest will be charged to them if they take advantage of the scheme.
I very much regret that the Government chose during the Committee stage to put in the Amendment in regard to housing. I have had some experience of Scottish conditions. During the Recess I have toured a large number of the farms which will come under the Bill and I have talked with the farmers. I have not met one who is prepared to take advantage of the Government's provisions in regard to housing. I am very much afraid that we may, as a result, have very few improvement schemes. There is no point in carrying out a vast improvement if one is denied assistance to maintain the improvement. It is regrettable that the Amendment was put in during the Committee stage. My personal point of view is that it deals very nearly, if not completely, a fatal blow at an otherwise promising Measure. I believe that is the feeling also of hill sheep farmers in the part of the country to which I belong.
The Bill has a first-class objective behind it. In its original form it was welcomed because it seemed to go a long way towards solving the problem of the depression in hill farming. It tries to solve the technical or farm management part of the problem. Hon. Members on this side now feel that we are being asked to pass an unsatisfactory Measure, because of what has been done to the Bill in respect of the housing of the workers who have to maintain the improvement schemes when they have been carried


out. Those who sit on this side of the House will endeavour, when they have the opportunity, to remove or to reverse this harsh and unimaginative proposal. Nevertheless, I wish the Bill the maximum of success possible—although I am bound to say I am not very optimistic, because of what the Government has done in refusing assistance to the tied cottage.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: There is no part of the country in which the Bill is more welcome than in Wales, which has as many hill farms as has any other part of the country. I hope that the Bill will lead to an upgrading of the mountain lands. I have seen some of the work which has been carried out in that respect under the aegis of the county agricultural committees, and it has been remarkable indeed. The help made available by the funds provided under the Bill should enable further progress to be made in the same direction. We are indebted to the inspiration and the work of Professor Stapledon. Although limited in the lands to which it applies and in the funds available, the Bill may well be a step towards the rebuilding of the countryside, which should be our objective. This is an urgent problem. We should make the farming of these hills an occupation in which men may look for proper gain, and one which will attract the best men. I hope the Bill will be administered in a sympathetic manner and that we shall be able to arrive at a common plan which will reconcile the claims of hill farming on the one hand and of afforestation on the other. I see no reason why a survey and a plan should not be carried out which will enable us to obtain the greatest benefit from the Bill. Hill farmers are a hardy race, and the Bill will be a contribution to a solution of their problems and I welcome it.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: I am glad to have an opportunity of giving my blessing to the Bill. I regard it as one more step towards the execution of a concerted plan for putting farming upon a sound basis for the future. The farms embraced in the scope of the Measure are probably in a worse plight than any others. They comprise about one-sixth of the total farmland of England and

Wales and are to be found especially in the counties of Cumberland, Westmorland, Yorkshire, especially North Yorkshire, and Northumberland. In Scotland, hill farms predominate.
The Measure is very important to the hill farms. The total number of hill sheep qualifying for subsidy in England and Wales alone is about 2,250,000. That figure represents some 38 per cent. of our total sheep population of 5,924,000 in that area alone. The Bill has already been spoken of as a relatively small Measure, but the figures I have given are a significant illustration of its importance.
I like the Title of the Bill. It conjures up in our minds—or it should—some of the loveliest tracts of country in the British Isles. The farms which are affected undoubtedly occupy sites of great charm and beauty wherever they lie. That fact endears them to all walkers and climbers who know the areas where they are, but they do not always realise the depressing inefficiency and the troubles encountered by the farmers who have to live there all the year round. As the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) has said, hill farmers are a virile and tough section of the community, living as they do next to Nature. Their calling has developed in their minds a poise and a largeness of outlook which has provided one of the healthiest and most sparkling tributaries which feed the stream of our national life.
Further depopulation of these areas would therefore be a real tragedy. That process has already gone much too far. The farm houses which come within the scope of this Measure are in many cases situated at much lower levels than the acres which have to be looked after. I therefore regret that the Bill does not provide for the resiting of those houses as well as for their
alteration, enlargement or reconditioning
as the First Schedule has it. I was glad to hear the Minister say tonight that, in the light of experience, the question of resiting might be attended to in the future. I believe that, in the narrow interests of sheep farming alone, the resiting of farm houses is very often essential.
I would refer to one or two other aspects of the Bill. It deals with hill farms as separate units rather than with their rehabilitation as a whole. That, I think, is unfortunate and may lead to its effect


being rather patchwork in its character. I am glad that the new Bill pays due regard to cattle and does not confine itself merely to sheep farms. I say that because cattle are of supreme importance in a balanced agriculture, and the reinstatement of the cattle industry on sheep land must be the first objective, which is, incidentally, very necessary for the good of the sheep themselves. Our hill lands have great potentialities and there should therefore be the closest integration between hill and lowland farming if the total livestock population of the country is to be maintained and if we are, as is so vitally necessary, to augment both meat and milk production.
The schedule of improvements which has been dealt with on the Report stage and which is undertaken under the Bill is pretty comprehensive and I am glad to note that it includes attention to such things as drainage, electric power, fencing, improvements to roads, buildings and bridges —and reseeding. I had great sympathy with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) on that aspect of the matter. If we take full account of the trend which may develop in this country we must always in measures of this kind aim at what I might call a marriage of the working and holiday interests. The hill land of this country is at once the workshop of the agricultural community and the playground of the urban dweller. I would like therefore to see the fullest attention paid in the future to the provision of improved facilities for holiday makers and visitors for which many farmers' wives in our hill lands are longing. This is an aspect of the reconditioning of farm houses which I hope the Minister will not overlook. It is part of that great plan to keep us all in touch with one another and with nature and to keep our feet on the ground—

Mr. R. S. Hudson: On the hills.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Summer visitors to the lonely hill farm dwellers can mean a very great deal to them. They provide a change of environment and an atmosphere which imparts that contentment which ensures that there shall be no more drifting from the countryside to the town. Finally, I do not believe that the productive use of our hills conflicts in any way with a policy of wide exten-

sion of national parks, a subject in which I am very specially interested—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has gone into a good many matters, but there are some at which I must draw the line. We cannot discuss national parks on this Bill.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and in conclusion say I very greatly welcome this Bill and wish the Minister well in carrying out its provisions. I am quite satisfied that it is very much indeed in the interests of hill farms in this country.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Drayson: Before this Bill leaves the House I should like to make one or two comments. The discussions we have had have shown very clearly the desirability of having two Bills rather than one—one to deal with England and the other for Scotland, where conditions differ vastly. It is to be regretted that the definition of hill fanning land in this Bill is still not as clear as it might be. Unlike the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge), I did not gather that the Minister was including cattle in his definition. It may be within the recollection of the House that he said this afternoon that he could not include cattle under Clause 1 of the Bill. The sum of money allotted under this Bill is still far too small and I was sorry to hear the Minister say that he did not wish the scope of the Bill to be enlarged. When saying that, he was referring to marginal land, which to my mind is one of the most important features of hill country in England requiring development at the present time. It has been pointed out that the marginal land at some future time may be more economical for farmers to develop without the need of Government assistance, but if, as the Minister also said, his desire is to increase the food supply in this country as soon as possible, then it is the marginal land that requires immediate attention and assistance. I would like to think that this Bill started at the marginal land and went up the mountain side rather than starting at the peaks and coming down. Here the emphasis has been wrongly placed.
I cannot feel altogether happy that the Minister has allowed no appeal against the decisions of the Ministry in regard to subsidy payments which the Minister referred to as a discretional payment. I hope that the Minister will use his influence with the


Minister of Health and the other Ministers concerned to see that the rural amenities that are mentioned in the Bill are as speedily as possible brought to the districts concerned. During the Recess I took the opportunity, like other hon. Members, of visiting the more remote districts of my constituency and I was impressed more than ever before by the need for these amenities in all areas. The whole countryside in the North of England at the present time is in perhaps a more parlous condition than it has been for many years. We have had, as the country well knows, an extremely difficult season. In some places no hay whatsoever has been gathered, feeding stuffs are of vital importance at the present time, and immediate assistance is required; nevertheless I wish this Bill, in spite of its limitations, every success.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. York: One of the points made by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) struck me as rather odd. He proposed for the rehabilitation of hill lands the widespread use of these lands by the people of the towns. I am all in favour of getting people out into the country, but I could never claim that that would be the best way of rehabilitating the farm lands. Before we get to that point, we want a very wide-scale educational movement in the schools to get the children to appreciate how to use the land, and perhaps then we shall be doing less damage when we go out for our walks at week-ends over these moors, I mention that in passing, but I did not want a wrong impression to go out. I want to ask a question on a point which I have not had an opportunity of raising before, with regard to wild birds—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell me where any reference to wild birds appears in the Bill?

Mr. York: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that my announcement was a little abrupt. I was going on to the question of heather burning and the destruction caused by it to the inhabitants of the heather. I only want to ask for an assurance on this question from the Government. In Scotland during the breeding season heather burning is prohibited. In England, under Clause 19, the Minister

has complete and very wide discretion as to what regulations and in what regions he will give those regulations. The Parliamentary Secretary knows as well as I do that the breeding seasons differ widely from Devonshire up to the Border, and if I could have an assurance from him that his regulations will meet the point which has been put to me by Societies such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the R.S.P.C.A., it will reassure them that he will not permit heather burning during the breeding season which would harm the very large numbers of birds on the list they sent me.
I am indeed sorry that this Bill has been wrecked by the exclusion of the tied cottage. It has adversely affected those people whom the objectors to the tied cottage most wish to help, and I say this without fear of being a bad prophet. On that point alone they have done the agricultural workers, particularly the shepherds, an ill service. Further, this Bill is quite worthless unless one fundamental point is borne in mind by all parties, that is, the price of the produce which comes off those hills. Unless the price of agricultural produce is right, no amount of rehabilitation, of rebuilding, of building cottages, of draining, will have the slightest effect because the producers will not produce unless it pays them, and the hills of this country will deteriorate still further despite this £5,000,000, which will be a mere drop in a very large ocean scattered over the wide areas that have to be dealt with. So unless this question of keeping the prices sound is borne in mind by all parties, the work we have put into this Bill, which the Government have put into it, and which the hill farmers will, I hope, put into the rehabilitation schemes will be wasted. Therefore, although I would like the Bill to be a success, I fear it will not be such a success as it would have been had it been left in its original form.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Watkins: I would like to join in the chorus wishing this Bill a speedy and easy passage through another place, and to voice the hope of the hill farmers in my constituency that this Bill will pass speedily into law. Contrary to the views expressed by a previous speaker, I think the Government are right in beginning with agriculture on the hills. That good Welshman, David Lloyd George, always


turned to the hills for inspiration, and I am certain that on this occasion the Government have done likewise, and that they will proceed not only with hill farming but also with marginal land as well in the near future. They have started well and I wish them every success. I would like to emphasise that other Ministries should pay great attention to the First Schedule to this Bill. I refer particularly to roads and bridges, because if you have not roads and bridges you will not get the wellbeing of agriculture. You cannot do anything in the Schedule unless you have good roads and bridges, and I hope local authorities will support it to that end. One word about cooption. If the war agricultural committees are not the right people to look at these schemes, I welcome the Minister's assurance in Committee that men who understand something about hill farming will be co-opted on some of these Committees.
With those few remarks I emphasise what the Minister said, that we as Members of Parliament ought to tell our constituents exactly what this Bill means to hill farmers. I did so during the Recess, and I paid tribute to the Opposition as well in some of their remarks with which I agreed. That being so, I did not have a single criticism or suggestion to bring before the House, and that is why I did not talk on the earlier stage. With these remarks I wish the Bill a speedy passage through another place.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. McKie: This is the last opportunity we have, before this Bill leaves us for another place, for approving or complaining of the Measure. I would not like it to leave us without a word being said about the Second Schedule. I would not like it to go out from this House, especially to those in Scotland who are interested, that we are entirely satisfied with the method of valuation proposed in the Second Schedule. I was at a meeting of the Black Faced Sheep Society of Scotland recently held in my constituency when very considerable doubts were expressed as to how the valuation would work out if the Schedule remains in the Measure as it is at present framed. I hope the Under-Secretary when replying will, if he sees fit, try to allay my fears and those of people who have expressed similar fears to me on this point.
A very well known hill sheep farmer in Scotland expressed the view to me that it would have been very much better to have had, not the three year basis for the valuation, but to have taken it on the prices of farms ruling in the districts, giving a valuer power to add or subtract according to the quality of the sheep stock in the individual farm under consideration. Fears will no doubt continue to be expressed, until we see the Measure functioning, as to whether or not the door is open to "wangling" under the present system of valuation. Further, the same hill farmer pointed out that if the valuation is on a three year basis it might be difficult, when the tenant went out of his farm, to find a suitable successor if there was a falling market, which there might quite easily be, especially when the agricultural welfare of this country is presided over by such an administration as we have at present, having regard to the very large sum which he would be required to pay as a result of the valuation with the market perhaps falling very rapidly. Then, no doubt, the poor landlord would be faced with the heavy responsibility of taking over the farm and taking over the sheep as well.
It is only right before this Bill obtains Third Reading that this possible danger— which I hope will not become a reality— should be stressed. I associate myself with what my hon. Friend the Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) said, and in which he was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York), about the housing situation on the hill farms. There is nothing contained in this Measure as it leaves us on Third Reading to make for what we consider a proper state of affairs for housing the people on the hill farms of Scotland, or any part of Great Britain. I sincerely hope that the Measure will be attended with all the success that hon. Members on the other side of the House have assured us will be the case.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Kenyon: I must also extend a welcome to this Bill, as one of that community which has been referred to as "tough and virile," and also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) for his eulogy of the hills and dales, and hill farms. I felt as I heard those things said that my hon. Friend has walked over those hills and dales in the summer, and in the day time.


He should try walking over them at night, and in the winter; he might then have a different opinion altogether.
This Bill has been accepted on both sides of the House as a good Bill. As one who was rather critical of it at first, I am afraid I have not changed my views. But I cannot agree with those who say that the omission of the Amendment which was not accepted by the Minister will cause the wrecking of the Bill. If this Bill is a good Bill and brings the stock to the hills and income to the farmers as we have heard it will, then the farmers should be able to meet some of the expense of these houses themselves. If this Bill is not going to bring that income to the farmers nor increase their stock, the whole thing is a complete failure. But I cannot accept the depressing view so often put forward in regard to this section of the industry. As one of them, I know that things are not so bad as they are painted, and that hill farmers in a large number of cases can renovate and recondition these cottages without any assistance. The whole success of this Bill, and of agriculture, depends upon the guaranteed price. The price of this product, the increase of the stock, and the reconditioning of the land —all these things depend on the market and the guaranteed price. If that goes, whatever the Government may try for agriculture will fail. So long as that is maintained, as it is at present, agriculture will come back into its own and stand on its own feet. As a hill farmer, I welcome the assistance that this Bill gives to the hill farmers, but in my opinion it was not necessary so long as the guaranteed market and guaranteed price were ensured.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

8.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill, to which I ask the House to give a Second Reading, deals with three matters affecting the administration of

police in Scotland—amalgamation of police forces, the Exchequer grant towards police expenditure and the provision of buildings and acquisition of land for police purposes. The main purpose of the Bill, like the Police Act for England and Wales which recently became law, is to provide suitable machinery for the amalgamation of police forces. At the present time there are in Scotland—I am sure this will be of interest to my Scottish colleagues—31 county forces and 18 burgh forces. Eighteen of the 49 have a strength of less than 50 and eight have a strength of less than 30. Over a quarter of a century ago the Desborough Committee unanimously and strongly recommended a reduction of the number of Scottish forces then existing. A small step in this direction was taken in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, which abolished eight small burgh forces and combined two pairs of county forces.
In 1932 a Committee which was set up by the three Scottish associations of local authorities under the chairmanship of the late Lord Lovat unanimously reported that the maintenance of numerous separate police forces resulted in duplication of staff and administration costs, and that on practical grounds the enlargement of units appeared to be advantageous. That Committee accordingly recommended that a further Committee should be appointed to survey the possibility of dividing Scotland into a smaller number of police areas. This further Committee, which consisted of police authority representatives under the chairmanship of the late Lord Ormidale, produced a report in 1933 which unanimously recommended the gradual reduction of Scottish forces to a total of 14.
Since these Committees reported, the case for reorganising the police resources of Scotland so that the units of administration will be large enough to cope with modern requirements has become still stronger. The mobility of criminals, to whom the existence of numerous police boundaries seems, in some cases, to be a godsend, the increase of road traffic and of road accidents, which create problems requiring unified police control over relatively large areas, the increasing need for expensive technical apparatus and for creating specialised police departments— all make it essential to have reasonably large units of administration. In large forces the men themselves will have wider


opportunities of gaining experience and promotion, and there should be economies in overhead expenses as compared with the cost of maintaining a number of separate forces in the same areas.
The existing Statutes are quite inadequate to enable the requisite reorganisation to be made. Section 61 of the Police (Scotland) Act, 1857, contains provision for merging, by local agreement, a burgh force in the force of the county in which the burgh is situated, but this provision, though its use has been urged on many occasions, has in fact been used only twice within my knowledge, namely, in Dumfriesshire and in Stirlingshire. Section 63 of the 1857 Act gives power by Order in Council to effect the compulsory consolidation of burgh and county forces. This provision, however, can be used only on application by the burgh, and it has been a dead letter since its enactment. There is no provision, either in the 1857 Act or elsewhere, so far as I know, for the consolidation of two or more burgh forces or the consolidation of two or more county forces. The Bill proposes to repeal these antiquated and unsatisfactory provisions and to replace them by new provisions under which any two or more police authorities, whether burghal or county, can agree, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to combine their police forces. The combined forces will be administered by the police authorities jointly through a Joint Police Committee in accordance with the provisions of an amalgamation scheme. I earnestly hope that the new facilities for voluntary amalgamation provided by Clause I of the Bill will be freely used by police authorities, and I will be prepared through my Department to give them every possible assistance in formulating their schemes. The Clause has been drawn so as to leave wide scope for arranging the contents of each amalgamation scheme to suit the circumstances of the areas because of the varying conditions in Scotland to which it will apply, and the wishes of the police authorities concerned.
There may, however, be cases where it is expedient, in the interests of efficiency, that police forces should be amalgamated and jointly administered, but where the police authorities concerned have not found it possible to submit a satisfactory scheme. Clause 2 of the Bill enables the Secretary of State to require amalgama-

tion in such a case, and himself to make a scheme for the purpose. Very full safeguards are, however, laid down. The Secretary of State must give the police authorities concerned notice of the general nature of the proposed scheme and, unless they agree with his proposals, must publish them and cause a public local inquiry to be held by an independent person. If he decides to proceed upon the report of that independent person, he must lay before Parliament a draft of the scheme and a copy of the report of the person by whom any inquiry has been held, and either House may reject the scheme within a period of 40 days.
Clauses 3 to 9 are supplemental and consequential. They include provisions, on the same terms as those accorded in the recent Police Act for England and Wales, safeguarding the position of chief constables and local government officers affected by an amalgamation, and also the position of policemen who are serving in the Armed Forces or overseas. The position of policemen other than chief constables is safeguarded by paragraph 1 of the Third Schedule and in addition, officers who have been serving in a burgh force will be protected by a regulation to be made under the Police Act, 1919, against being moved out of the burgh without their consent. The local authority associations and the Chief Constables Association will be given an opportunity of considering a draft of the regulations to be made under Clause 7.
Clause 10 has been included in the Bill to give effect to a recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee that, where grants are supported solely by the authority of annual Appropriation Acts, the opportunity should be taken of inserting regularising Clauses whenever appropriate legislation is introduced. I have been advised that, apart from the annual Appropriation Acts, there is no operative statutory authority for the payment of police grant in Scotland. Clause 10 fills in this gap. As regards the conditions to be determined under the clause, the Associations of Local Authorities will be given an opportunity of considering a draft of these before they are settled.
Clause 11 redefines the purpose for which police authorities, or in certain cases Joint Police Committees, may provide and maintain property for the transaction of their business and for police


purposes, and applies the procedure of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act to cases of compulsory purchase.
Since its introduction in another place the Bill has been amended on a number of points to meet representations made by the Convention of Royal Burghs, the Association of County Councils, and the Scottish Police Federation. When it is being examined in Committee in this House, no doubt further improvements will be made. The Bill is a long overdue contribution to the development of police efficiency in Scotland, and I trust that all sections of the House will agree that it should receive a Second Reading.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I think the Secretary of State is quite right when he says that there is a case for some further amalgamation of police forces in Scotland. There are too many small ones, but, on the other hand, such a process can easily be carried too far, and I very much hope that the Secretary of State, now or on the Committee stage, will be able to give us some assurance that, where there is a borderline case, he will decide it in favour of the status quo and not force an amalgamation on unwilling authorities.
It is essential that the police of this country should be part of the local community, that they should be the friends and guides of the people rather than that they should be ultra-efficient and lose the confidence of those among whom they work. There is nothing like remote control for destroying the present happy relations, which are almost universal, between the police and people of Scotland. It may well be that apparent extra efficiency may be gained in a number of cases by amalgamations, but we must remember that, in some of these cases, there will be a countervailing loss which we cannot evaluate in statistics, but which will, nevertheless, be very real. I hope the Secretary of State, or whoever is administering this Bill when it becomes an Act, will bear that in mind.
The Secretary of State placed some stress upon economy. It is very doubtful whether amalgamations do produce economy; in many cases, where apparently they do, something goes wrong when we get a larger authority. There is more top hamper, so to speak, from officialdom,

more red tape, and a great deal is lost that way. Many cases occur where, looking at the thing at first sight, one would say that great economies could be made by amalgamation. But when the amalgamation is made it is found, to one's surprise, that there is no economy at all. In fact, very often it is the other way. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will not raise the economy argument when he considers the question of amalgamation, because it is a wholly unreal argument.
Another point which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned was that he hoped amalgamation would lead to the development of more specialist branches of police work in the amalgamated forces. I hope he will not try to carry that too far, because my impression—and it is a strong impression—is that it is a great mistake, even in the medium sized police forces, to seek to have too much self-sufficiency. We have a very happy spirit of informal co-operation in Scotland between the smaller police forces and the larger ones. It would be a great pity if amalgamation led to the formation of specialist services, which cannot be as full or numerous as those in the great cities, and to the breaking of the spirit of cooperation between the smaller and larger forces. In many cases the right way to cope with requirements for specialist services is to invoke the assistance, which I think is always freely given, of the large city forces. I hope there will not be any idea, if a new amalgamated force is set up, that that force is then going to be self-sufficient and that the most admirable specialist forces in the larger cities will be called upon less frequently. These things should not be done in any formal way; they ought to depend on informal, friendly relations, as I think they do at the moment and which I hope will long continue.
I will now pass to the question of procedure before amalgamation is forced upon any area. I welcome the fact that there is to be a local inquiry. Still more do I welcome the fact that the report of the person who holds the inquiry is to be made public. I hope this means a change of heart in the Government when we come to other Bills. This is not by any means the first time that this question has cropped up, and I do not say that previous Governments have been altogether blameless in the matter; far from it. But I hope this is the start of a new tendency, because


I have always regretted that the report of the person who holds the inquiry is not made public. There are, of course, a few cases where that cannot be helped. Those whose affairs are affected by the ultimate decision feel that justice has been done behind closed doors, and that that is really not justice at all. If they get the report of the person who holds the inquiry published, then they know that they have seen into the mind of the person who heard them give the evidence and submit the argument. I hope, therefore, that the next time this kind of Clause comes along the Secretary of State will be true to his present form.

Mr. Westwood: If the step is in the right direction.

Mr. Reid: Yes, the step is in the right direction, and we shall want to know why if he tries stepping back next time. I am glad to see in the Second Schedule that the right hon. Gentleman is not repeating the error which he perpetrated a little time ago of seeking to impose his expenses on the parties. In a recent Bill, he insisted, quite unwarrantably, on putting his own expenses on to the parties. He has now returned to the path of rectitude, and I hope he will stay there.

Mr. Westwood: I am doing very well.

Mr. Reid: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is doing very well. Perhaps he will not be doing quite so well tomorrow, but I think it is a good thing to give credit where it is due; then, perhaps, when I have something less favourable to say it may get home.
There are two other points I wish to make. Clause 10, which the Secretary of State has told us is put in to regularise the position, does not go very far in that direction. I have seldom seen a more general and unilluminating Clause. It allows the Secretary of State to pay—
such sums, at such times, in such manner and subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury determine.
That does not regularise much. It leaves the Secretary of State a completely free hand. It may well be that that is desirable, but I hope the Secretary of State will give us a little more information on this point when we come to the Committee stage. To say that one is doing anything more than making a formal change when inserting a wide provision of that sort, is, I think, claiming too much. This is a

sort of "red tape" Treasury device which means nothing but, apparently, satisfies some formalistically-minded people that something has been done. I hope the Secretary of State will be able to tell us whether this Clause has any content at all, or whether it is only there because somebody wants to have something on paper that looks nice. I am not objecting to it, but I hope we shall get a little more explanation when the time comes, because it does look a rather questionable way of dealing with the matter.
The only other point I wish to make concerns Clause 11. This Clause gives power to acquire land by the new procedure in the Acquisition of Land Act, 1946. I do not think we ever took serious exception to the provisions of Section 1 of that Act. It tidied up a great many existing Acts which required to be brought into line, and I do not think we had any serious objection to that. To Section 2, on the other hand, we did object most strenuously, and, indeed, it Was only supported by the Government from the point of view that it was required in exceptional circumstances of great urgency. I cannot imagine that there would be exceptional circumstances of great urgency with regard to the acquisition of land for the purposes of this Bill. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary of State will see his way to exclude the application of Section 2 of that Act, and, if he will not do that, at least will give us an assurance that that Section will not be used. I cannot imagine any conceivable circumstances in which it would be proper to use the Section and, therefore, as Acts of Parliament ought, so far as possible, to coincide with the intentions of the Government which introduces them, it would be well to bring the Clause into line with what, I am sure, must be the intentions of the Secretary of State. I hope, therefore, the Secretary of State will accept an Amendment to that effect. As I say, I think this Bill is one which, if rightly used, can produce good results, but it does hold out some temptation to go too far, and I hope the Secretary of State will resist that. As I have said, it contains some good minor features which I hope the Secretary of State will keep in mind when he is drafting other bigger and more important Bills.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. McLean Watson: On general principles I welcome


the Bill, the Second Reading of which the Secretary of State has just moved. There are, however, one or two comments that I would like to make with regard to this Measure. I notice, in the first place, that it is a permissive Measure, that it permits local police authorities to amalgamate. It does not compel them to do it, but the Secretary of State holds a little bit in reserve whereby he may frame schemes if the local authorities themselves do not frame schemes for the amalgamation of the police forces. I hope that as far as possible good will will be maintained between the burgh authorities and the county authorities. Since the passing of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, there has been a very considerable amount of friction, especially between the county authorities and the representatives of the small burghs over other matters, and we may have the same situation arising if compulsion is used with regard to the amalgamation of the police forces instead of good will on the part of all with regard to this proposition. This matter was discussed to a certain extent in 1929 when the Local Government (Scotland) Act was passed. I believe that at that time it was the desire of the Government to have much larger police administrative areas, but that was successfully prevented by the large burghs who have been allowed in a number of cases to continue their own police forces.
I believe this Measure ought to effect some economies. I am inclined to agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid), that when we begin to talk about economies sometimes we get a surprise. When the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, was before the House we were assured that it would effect economies, that there would be great economies by having certain functions that were performed by small burghs transferred to the county. I would be very much surprised to learn that that Measure has effected economies. I think the tendency has been just as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suspects, in the opposite direction. I hope it will not mean that after these amalgamations take place all the highly paid men in the police services will have huge increases in salary, and that other expensive projects will be undertaken which would wipe out any economy that might be effected by these

amalgamations. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what happened in 1929 after we got the Local Government (Scotland) Act; salaries were increased, expenses were increased, and all the rest of it. As I have already said, instead of economies we had the whole thing going in the opposite direction, and certain local authorities in Scotland have been very loud in their complaints about the county administration. Year after year, we have had protests from our small burghs about requisitioning by the county council for certain purposes. We may have the very same thing as far as this Measure is concerned, and we may not effect very many economies as a result. At the same time, I agree there should be an amalgamation of certain of the police forces in Scotland. I do not think we require all of them. Many of the large burghs can well afford to have their forces absorbed in the county area, having the whole under one administration instead of three and four as we have at the present time.
There are many other aspects of this Measure upon which I would like to comment, but I know there is other important business tonight and I do not want to delay the proceedings. I dare say that in Committee we will have an opportunity of putting forward suggestions which may improve the Measure that is put before us tonight. I hope there will be good feeling on the part of the local authorities, the large burghs and the county burghs and that we are not going to have arising between the large burghs in the county areas the feeling which exists between small burghs and the county councils at the present time. With these comments I give a general welcome to the Measure, but I hope that during the Committee stage we shall examine much more closely the details that have been explained to us by the Secretary of State tonight.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: As the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Watson) said, at first sight this Bill is a nice permissive Bill enabling people who feel that they would like to do something, to get together to do it. Then we reach Clause 2, which pretty well does away with that permissive element. It certainly gives the Secretary of State power to say, "If you don't like doing this, you are jolly well going to do it."


Reading the Clause carefully one finds that he can apply those powers:
If it appears to the Secretary of State that the expediency in the interests of efficiency …
and so on. Well, I should be very interested if the joint Under-Secretary of State, when winding up this Debate, would tell us how he defines this expediency. It may be a little difficult. We might have an admirable police force working in a large burgh which suddenly finds itself definitely advised that something is going to happen to it. It is bound to ask why. It may have been a very efficient force, as far as its own area was concerned, but the Secretary of State decides otherwise. On what advice does he make that decision? It would be very helpful if we could have some idea of what he is after if he applies the powers in Clause 2 of this Bill.

Mr. Westwood: May I point out that there is only one case in my mind in connection with that? I did not tell that local authority I would call for amalgamation, but it so happened the chief constable was resigning, and I did say there was a possibility of a Bill which would deal with amalgamation, and that they would be wise not to appoint a chief constable until they could see how much of the cost they would have to bear.

Mr. Maclay: I did not suggest the right hon. Gentleman used powers he had not got, to achieve a certain object. But I would hope that, in the reply, we shall be given some indication of how the Secretary of State could have made that rather interesting suggestion that they would be better to wait. I quite appreciate that there is a case for certain amalgamations, but we shall want to know clearly what the Secretary of State is trying to achieve in going for these amalgamations. Then I come to another point. If a police force is amalgamated under a scheme, if, previously, it was efficiently run and cheaply run, is there any protection to the local authority responsible for the police force that is to be amalgamated? It will not be called on to pay considerably more for its police force than it did before? The rate will not be heavier in relation to the police than before? I hope that an indication can be given on that now, or it may be necessary to put down an Amendment, to protect such an authority, when we come to the Committee stage.
There is another point that, I think, ought to be raised at this stage, and that is on Clause 1, Subsection 8, which reads as follows:
For the purposes of the Local Government Superannuation (Scotland), Act, 1937, the appropriate superannuation fund in relation to the contributory employees of a joint police committee shall be the superannuation fund of such one of the constituent authorities as may be determined by or under the amalgamation scheme.
Can we be given some indication which superannuation fund will apply, and can we be certain that no men will be worse off after amalgamation than they were before? If there are differences in the scheme, as this Clause must imply, can we be certain men are not going to be worse off after amalgamation?
The final point I would make is this. We must accept the fact that there may be a case for certain amalgamations. One is bound to view with some concern the progressive centralisation of local authority affairs and particularly of police forces. One can really see it going a very long way. I do not know how far the Secretary of State intends to take the matter under the powers given him in this Bill, or how far this Secretary of State intends to go. But ultimately, is there not a very real danger of a completely centralised police force, which could so easily become a political police force? I just raise the point; I am not certain that the wilder elements in Scotland would be very frightened of the present Secretary of State as the head of a repressive police force, but I suggest that in this passion which the Government have for centralisation, put out very nicely and attractively in this form, they have gone too far and sooner or later will find that it is an unpleasant thing they have done.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Robertson: While I should like to add my meed of praise for the Measure, I am very anxious to make sure that the Secretary of State will consider the position of some of the men who have been taken over from the police forces formerly in operation. Just recently I came across a case in which a police force was transferred under the Police Acts. Four men were taken over and formed the backbone of the newly constituted police force in that locality, but they were deprived of the benefits which, I contend, ought to have followed them. For example,


one man who had reached the age of 60 years was retired without any pension whatsoever. He had had 36 years' service in that particular police force, and I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the possibility of dealing with isolated cases of that kind, so that these men may find that they will not be worse off than they would have been had they remained under the old scheme. I wanted to make that point so that when we come to the Committee stage the Secretary of State will, I hope, give some attention to it.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: When I was recently on a busman's holiday in the Shetland Isles, I came across the case related by the hon. Member for Berwick and Haddington (Mr. Robertson). There were four policemen in Lerwick employed by the county council. They had a superannuation scheme, but were taken over under the new Act and had to relinquish the superannuation they were entitled to. But, having been taken over under the new Act, they were not entitled to a pension. That seemed to me to be hard lines, and there is very strong feeling locally about the way these men have been dealt with. There was one man with 14 years' service, another man with 30, and so forth, and when their time expires there will be no pension for them. In Orkney and Shetland there are only eight men affected but during the war the police force in Shetland had to be increased three times, and these men of the old force had to carry on all the extra work until the new recruits were trained. When I tell the House that there were something like 40,000 troops in the Islands during the war, it will be realised that a tremendous amount of extra work was caused. They feel, and the people also feel, that these members of the old force were treated badly when they were reduced to the status of new recruits. It is a matter which ought to be taken up and rectified.

8.55 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) will forgive me if I do not deal with the particular case he has raised; indeed I do not know whether it would be fitting to do so on the Second Reading of this Bill. There is not very

much for me to say, because generally speaking Members have supported the Secretary of State on the proposals contained in the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hill-head (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) questioned the need for this somewhat vague phraseology in Clause 10. The Secretary of State said in his opening speech that he was seeking to regularise the payment of these moneys to police forces. If it should be any comfort to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, let me tell him that Clause 10 is precedented in several Acts of Parliament. I can give him two examples, The Probation of Offenders (Scotland) Act and The Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act. The Clause provides authority for prescribing conditions under which grants will be paid, and these conditions will be discussed with the associations of local authorities. He was concerned lest we might invoke the quick procedure under Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land Act. I give him an assurance that there is no intention whatsoever of using the quick procedure. As he suggested in the course of his speech, it is a matter which we might look at between now and the next stage in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) asked me to attempt to define efficiency and the test which is to be applied when an amalgamation scheme is proposed. I am afraid I am going to disappoint him and make no attempt to do that. I should have thought it was very clear that there is no intention on the part of the Secretary of State to impose his will harshly on any local authorities. He hopes that this Bill will be an instrument which will be voluntarily used by local authorities to bring about the amalgamation of police forces, which seems to be considered desirable by so many people. It must be some comfort to the hon. Member to note that there is to be a public inquiry, and that the person who conducts the inquiry will be asked to make a report to the Secretary of State, and that before any amalgamation scheme is put through Parliament will have had an opportunity to examine the scheme, and, if it is so desired, can negative the proposal of the Secretary of State. He raised the question about centralisation of control. We are not seeking to centralise control at all. Even after amalgamation is carried through the Secretary of State does not retain for himself any


more control over the police than obtained heretofore.
All that happens is that two or more police forces become amalgamated into one police force and are controlled by a police authority which is local authority controlled, as at present. There is no tendency whatsoever in the Bill towards St. Andrew's House or Westminster control over our police forces, and I think it takes a stretch of imagination to foresee, in this Bill, the setting up of a political police—

Mr. Maclay: I appreciate that the Parliamentary Secretary finds it difficult to define "efficiency," but could he give us an assurance that the fact that something is small does not necessarily mean that it is inefficient, and that it ought, therefore, to be abolished? A lot of small things are very good.

Mr. Fraser: We do not claim that an organisation that is small is, therefore, inefficient. Indeed, someone behind me has just whispered something about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. But in any case, the facts will be closely examined by the independent person who will have his local public inquiry, and Parliament will have to give approval to any scheme submitted to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Maclay: I asked whether any protection would be given to local authorities against increases in police rates after amalgamations. Would the hon. Gentleman say something about that?

Mr. Fraser: I think that is a point of detail which can be more appropriately discussed on the Committee stage. The hon. Member also asked me about superannuation schemes, and whether those who were now covered would be brought within the schemes of the amalgamated forces. It is for every amalgamation scheme to say which superannuation scheme shall apply. I do not think that anyone will be prejudiced, because superannuation benefits are, by and large, standard throughout the country. As I said at the outset, there does not seem to be much more that can be usefully said at this moment. We appreciate very much indeed the points which have been made by the few Members who have participated in the discussion, and I am sure that we can have a frank and useful further inter-

change of views during the Committee stage of the Bill.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Captain Michael Stewart (Comptroller of the Household): I beg to move, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."

Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire): Do I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that a Motion has been moved to commit the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The Question cannot be debated now.

Mr. McKinlay: I am not going to debate it; I am raising a point of Order. Do I understand that a Motion has been moved to commit this Bill to a Committee of the Whole House? Can we have any explanation?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid not.

Mr. McKinlay: Then I move that the Bill be committed to the Scottish Grand Committee. Is that in Order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, but the hon. Member can vote against the Motion if he wishes.

Bill accordingly committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.

Orders of the Day — POLICE (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[Major MILNER in the Chair.]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the amalgamation of police forces in Scotland, to provide for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants towards police expenditure in Scotland and to amend the law relating to the provision of buildings and acquisition of land in Scotland for police purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament towards the expenses of police authorities or joint police committees constituted under the said Act of such sums at such times in such manner and subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury determine." (King's Recommendation signified).—[Mr. Westwood.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — COUNTY COUNCILS ASSOCIATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

9.6 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This short Bill, for which I ask a Second Reading, is a result of a request which was made to me by the County Councils Association to enable them to face up to their financial responsibilities under modern conditions. There were difficulties at the beginning, but ultimately I was able to get 100 per cent. agreement as between the County Councils Association and the Convention of Royal Burghs.
The Association of County Councils in Scotland, which was founded in 1894, exists to meet the needs of county councils for coordination of policy, consultation in their common interests and discussion of local government affairs. It includes among its members all the county councils in Scotland. It is in close and constant touch with Government Departments, who regard it as the normal channel of consultation with county councils in all matters of local government concern. It accordingly forms a very vital part of the structure of local government in Scotland. It is clearly unnecessary to point out that the volume and scope of the Association's work has grown enormously since its inception. Not only have the responsibilities of the local authorities been multiplied and extended; but the county councils have had to take over an increasing share of these responsibilities. In 1929, for example, there were transferred to the county councils all the duties of the former education authorities, parish councils and district committees, and many of the duties of the town councils of small burghs.
In these circumstances, and keeping in mind the fall in the value of money, it is not surprising that the provision made in 1894 for financing the Association's work is no longer adequate. The County Councils Association (Scotland) Expenses Act, 1894, enabled the constituent councils to subscribe to the funds of the Association up to a maximum of £30 per annum; and to pay the reasonable ex-

penses of representatives, not exceeding four in number from any one council, attending meetings of the Association. In recent years, the Association's funds have been eked out by contributions made by the constituent councils as education authorities—that was made possible because of the 1929 Act—under the authority of a minute of the Scottish Education Department issued in 1934 in exercise of powers under the Education Acts; and by contributions made by the county councils under Section 16 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, which enables local authorities to make payments for schemes of public utility This situation is clearly unsatisfactory as far as the Association of County Councils is concerned, and when the Association recently decided that its work made necessary the appointment of a full-time staff, the case for amending legislation putting its financial affairs on a proper basis became urgent. Discussions were accordingly entered into by the Association with the Convention of Royal Burghs and with my own Department, and I am glad to say that the Measure now submitted represents an agreed solution of the problem.
Clause 1 fixes the maximum sum which the Association can spend in any one year at a figure not exceeding the produce of a rate of one-twelfth of one penny on the rateable value of the whole of Scotland outside the four counties of cities. It then provides for the apportionment of the expenditure which is actually incurred within this maximum among the constituent councils. One-third of that expenditure is to be spread evenly over the whole country, excluding the cities to which I have referred, and dealt with in the same way as educational expenditure. This is because all county councils and the town councils of all burghs, large and small, are interested in the work of the Association in relation to education. The balance of the expenditure is then spread over the whole country, exclusive of the cities and also of the large burghs—which are generally speaking in the counties only for educational purposes—in such a way that the burden in the landward area in terms of a rate is double the burden in the small burghs. The reason for this differentiation between the landward area and the small burghs is that the latter are included in the counties for certain purposes only, and their interest in the


work of the Association is therefore less than that of the landward area.
Clause 2 of the Bill enables the constituent county councils to pay the expenses of not more than six members, instead of the four provided for in the 1894 Act, in attending meetings of the Association, and directs that the cost incurred is to be dealt with by each council in the same way as the share as the Association's expenses which is allocated to that council. This increase in representation will in practice affect only one or two of the largest county councils. Clause 3 enables the Association to make arrangements for the superannuation of its staff which, as has been explained, is now employed in a wholetime capacity. Clause 4 is the interpretation Clause. Clause 5 prescribes the short title of the Bill, repeals the old Act of 1894, and provides that the Bill will operate from the beginning of the current financial year.

9.14 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: As the Secretary of State has so ably explained, this Bill is to provide legislation to enable the county councils to raise the amount of their contributions to the Association of County Councils. That Association, as the Secretary of State very rightly said, fulfils a most important function, and one which is, indeed, vital to local government in Scotland. It provides a focus for the opinion of county councils, and without it, that opinion could not be focused. It provides also a means by which the Secretary of State may very quickly inform himself of the opinion of the county councils on any subject whatsoever, and that without having recourse to the very burdensome procedure of having to consult those councils individually.
It seems to me that today there is even a greater importance to be attached to this Association, in view of the very great powers which the central Government are taking unto themselves. As a result it seems essential that the county councils and the opinions of the county councils should be represented by some body of great weight and authority and enabled to speak with a single voice to the Government. I believe that it is of the very highest importance to the good government of this country that the voice of the county councils should be made

known to the Government and should be strongly pressed when that is required. In those circumstances I can see no alternative whatsoever but to give authority to the county councils to raise their contributions to such an extent as will provide the Association of County Councils with sufficient funds to enable them to carry out their functions efficiently. I should just like to put one question to the Secretary of State. Could he tell the House what is the total amount which will be raised by this sum of 1-12th of a penny in the pound of the rateable valuation?

Mr. Westwood: I cannot give a reply to that point off hand, but the information will certainly be available on the Committee stage.

Commander Galbraith: I am thankful for that answer. I have put forward the views of hon. Members on these benches and I hope that in view of the importance of this Association to local government the House will see fit to pass this Bill on Second Reading with unanimity.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire): I am glad that the Secretary of State has been able to report 100 per cent. agreement between the County Councils Association and the Convention of Royal Burghs. I agree that the Convention of Royal Burghs is more a subject for subscriptions from an antiquarian society than from a local government body. The Secretary of State may have been in some hurry to make his carefully prepared but far from lucid statement. He might inform us how the Counties and Cities Association stands in relation to those consultative bodies. I spent many weary hours as a member of a local authority, attending the County Association and such like bodies, and I do not know what the financial structure of the Counties and Cities Association is. That however is not what brought me to my feet. I agree, as do most of my hon. Friends, that Scottish business is being used rather as a soya bean to pack out the Government's pudding to the end of the Session, so that we shall be taking Scottish Bills in Committee on the Floor of this House; but more of that anon. The Secretary of State was good enough to draw the attention of the House to Clause 2 but, if I may say so, he merely mentioned that there was a Clause 2 in the Bill and


carefully sidestepped any explanation of Subsection (2) of that Clause. I should like to draw attention to this and, if possible, receive an explanation from the Secretary of State of just exactly what all this jargon means. Clause 2(2) reads as follows:
(2) The expenditure incurred by a county council in making payments under the last foregoing Subsection shall be divided into two parts, the first bearing to the second the same proportion as the sum allocated to that county under paragraph (a) bears to the sum so allocated under paragraph (b) of Subsection (2) of the foregoing Section; and Subsections (3) and (4) of that Section shall apply to the said two parts as if they had been allocated to that county under the said paragraphs (a) and (b) respectively".
I do not know whether one gets the answer to this in the fruit market or the fish market but I think it is treating the House lightly for the Secretary of State to omit such an explanation from a very carefully prepared statement such as he always gives us. Why should he boggle at that? Can we not have an explanation? [Interruption.] Well, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) can give us an explanation, but at the moment I am asking the Secretary of State for Scotland for it. We want to know exactly what is meant by this Subsection. It is no use saying that that is a matter for the Committee. I should be very pleased if the Secretary of State, before we give a Second Reading to the Bill, could explain exactly what it means.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: rose—

Mrs. Jean Mann: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Can we not have an explanation of the Subsection to which my hon. Friend has just referred? We have a Bill in front of us, a part of which we find it impossible to understand. Can we not have the explanation?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No doubt an explanation will be given in due time.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I was about to say that I thought this was a Bill of which the House could readily and unanimously approve. The Secretary of State must feel a certain amount of ironic pleasure in presenting the Bill. He has not always thought too kindly of the County Councils Association or of its constituent members.

In the 14 years I have been in this House I have heard him speak rather critically about them. He now realises that the Association is really a valuable body. It has offered him—

Mr. Westwood: I should be very interested, after my long association with administration in Scotland, to have any evidence that I have ever criticised the County Councils Association, as such, in the work it has been doing on behalf of Scotland.

Mr. Stewart: It would take a bit of research, of course, but it should be comparatively easy to provide such evidence. I always understood that the right hon. Gentleman regarded the county councils as on the whole very reactionary bodies. He has said that time and time again, and the Association representing those bodies has fallen also under the same condemnation as reactionary. Now, the right hon. Gentleman is giving them greater powers, greater finance, greater liberty and greater potentiality of influence upon himself, his Department and his successors. I am all for it. I represent a county area and I have, therefore, very close and constant association with the county council and also with the County Councils Association. I can only say that if the right hon. Gentleman had listened in the last year to the County Councils Association upon, for example, the question of housing, with greater care than he did, we should have more houses today than we have. It is a comfort to me to feel that under the Bill the Association will have more influence upon the Secretary of State than it has had in the past. That change can do nothing but good. On this occasion I am happy that it should happen—it happens so seldom nowadays —that I am in the pleasant position of being able to say "Hear, hear" to what the right hon. Gentleman is doing.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. McKinlay: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not an act of great discourtesy on the part of the Minister that, having had a question addressed to him, he should deliberately ignore it?

9.24 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I should have thought that the question asked by my hon. Friend was essentially a Com-


mittee point, and not one to be asked or answered on the Second Reading. I have always understood that we discussed the principle of a Bill upon the Second Reading. If that is so, the House has to discuss the plan of the Bill, and whether or not the County Councils Association should be enabled to raise more money from its constituent members to enable its work to be carried on. Hon. Members have agreed that that should be done. My hon. Friend read out Clause 2 (2), referred to it as jargon and asked what it meant. It merely means that each county council pays the expenses of its own delegates to the Association. The cost is allocated among the burghs, large and small, and the landward area in exactly the same proportions as the counties' share of the expenses of the Association. That is what it means, but if however my hon. Friend is not satisfied that that is what it means or that it does not mean anything at all, he will have an opportunity of putting his Amendments on the Order Paper so that the matter may be discussed in the Committee stage. I should have thought there was no doubt at all about its being a Committee point. Indeed I did not think there was any Debate to reply to, and I honestly thought that it would be wasting the time of hon. Members if I got to my feet and further discussed this Bill on which no difference of opinion has as yet been expressed.
It is true that opinions have been expressed. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) said that my right hon. Friend had referred to these bodies as reactionary bodies in the past, but that does not mean that he proposed the abolition of these bodies, and my right hon. Friend questions whether he ever referred to the County Councils Association as a reactionary body. Many of us have referred to the British Parliament and the British Government in past days as being reactionary. We did not propose however that Parliament should be abolished. In the same way many hon. Members, especially on this side of the House, will on many occasions have described the County Councils Association and the Convention of Royal Burghs as being reactionary and out of touch with public opinion and so on, but nevertheless I am satisfied that all of them are perfectly ready to give a blessing to a measure that proposes to enable this association of local authorities in Scotland to raise sufficient moneys from its

constituent member; to allow it to carry out its work. That is what this Bill proposes to do, and I hope that hon. Members who have participated in the brief discussions we have had on Second Reading will take the opportunity of looking into the Bill very closely between now and the Committee stage so that we may have the benefit of any opinions they may care to express as to how the Bill can be improved at that time.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.— [Captain Michael Stewart.]

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

9.28 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a consolidation Bill. I have always been interested in consolidation of Scottish law in the interests of administration and of the officials who have to look after that administration in Scotland. This is a case where I have been able to present to the House, and am presenting now, a consolidation Bill. At present the law relating to education in Scotland is contained in some 23 separate Statutes beginning with the Act of 1872 and ending with the Act passed last year. Consolidation is long overdue and will be a great boon to all concerned with the administration of the law. The Bill has been considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills whose report has been laid before this. House. The Committee proposed some Amendments to this Bill. Those Amendments were made in another place and are incorporated in the Bill to which I ask the House to give a Second Reading.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a good, workmanlike Measure. It reflects great credit on those who, in spite of overwork in the Department, have been able to bring it forward at this time It would be quite contrary to precedent, and I think thoroughly undesirable, to seek to amend this Bill in


this House. It represents a compromise solution which was reached with the assent of all parties in the 1935 Act. That Act did not satisfy any of us wholly. There were points which the right hon. Gentleman did not like and points which I did not like. It would be a great pity, apart altogether from the fact that it is not usual to amend consolidation Bills, to accept that compromise before we see whether it will really work, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman takes that view.
When this Bill becomes an Act it will assist those who have to administer the educational system of Scotland. It will not, of course, hasten or assist in any way the building of schools or the training of teachers, and still less will it do anything to avert the menace of rapidly mounting local rates for education which may bring many schemes to a premature standstill but, so far as it goes, it is a good Bill. It will help the administration. And so long as we realise that by itself it will not do much, I think we ought to give it a Second reading.

9.32 p.m.

Major McCallum: It is true that this is a consolidation Bill and, as the Secretary of State for Scotland said just now, it consolidates Measures from 1872 to 1945. Consolidation of itself, however, does not seem able to provide education in certain parts of Scotland of which the Secretary of State is well aware and it has, in fact, resulted in the closing of schools. Clause 1 says:
It shall be the duty of every education authority to secure that adequate and efficient provision is made throughout their area of all forms of primary, secondary and further education. …
The Minister is well aware of the correspondence I have had with him for months past on certain schools which have been closed through the lack of teachers. The situation is such that the position in Argyllshire goes from bad to worse as regards providing education for our agricultural families' children. I wonder, therefore, if the Secretary of State can say whether this consolidation Bill will make any improvement in the present bad position in this respect?

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: I think that my right hon. Friend is due our congratulations in this consolidation

Measure, which is in itself an important step. However, I would like to refer to various matters that to me are more important than the mere consolidating Bill in itself. I welcome it as important, because it comes at a time when the relationship between teacher and pupil is in a happier state than it has ever been before. It comes at a time when there is a growing cooperation between the school and the home, and also when a more positive emphasis has been given to educational content than at any other previous period. The negative aspects of education are receding; the positive is today receiving the emphasis. Offences, such as lying, truanting, thieving, and sex offences, are no longer visited merely with punishment. Today we seek to try to find the why and wherefore of these offences. Scientific research through the doctor, the psychologist, and more highly equipped teaching staffs, has been brought to our aid so that misdemeanours which were once dismissed with the tawse or the belt are now the subject of deep, scientific study, and in so far as the Measure before us tonight promotes and encourages this new attitude in education, I think on both sides of the House we can give it a welcome.
For on the maltreatment of these offences rests a great deal of the morbid fears, the mental disorders, and neurasthenia and social delinquencies which afflict the country today. This is no small problem. The Tavistock Institute, which was founded in 1920, shows that today there are 3 million people who are suffering from these illnesses, and the cost to the country is running into the neighbourhood of £40 million. While under this Measure my right hon. Friend is only responsible for his appropriate fraction, he will agree with me that the amount of money concerned would be better invested in an education that prevents rather than merely seeks to cure these problems.

Mr. Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member that the purpose of this Bill is to consolidate educational Measures, and we cannot discuss the whole field of juvenile education within its terms.

Mr. Rankin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I am venturing perhaps a little wide, but I thought that while the purpose was consolidation, in that consolidation there must be an intention. I wanted to direct


attention to the fact that if the Measure, as consolidated, is to be a success, it has to fulfil the intention which is stated in the Measure itself. Clause 4 covers some of the points which I have been seeking to raise. I shall not prosecute that part of my argument any further, but I should like my right hon. Friend to give some indication as to how he proposes to fulfil certain demands that are placed on him under the operation of this Measure.
While the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) referred to the fact that we could not deal with staffing and accommodation, I think he will agree that tonight, five months from the date when the school leaving age comes into operation, it is important that we should have from my right hon. Friend some indication as to how he is equipped at the moment to deal with that problem in those two aspects. If the raising of the school age is to become a reality on 1st April, 1947, we must have staff. What is the inflow at the present moment into the training colleges? What is the reservoir upon which my right hon. Friend has to draw in order to meet the demands under the Act?

Mr. Speaker: It might be for the convenience of the House and other hon. Members if I reminded them that in a consolidation Bill the administration of the Act is not a matter for discussion.

Mr.. Rankin: I am not really wanting to interfere in any way with my right hon. Friend's prerogative to administer. I am merely a humble seeker after information. I thought that under this Measure, as consolidated, that information might be forthcoming tonight. It is of tremendous importance.
I have referred to the question of staff. Might I just put a point with regard to accommodation under this Measure? I am thinking chiefly of the town which I know best, the city of Glasgow. At the present time, if this Measure is to become a reality, 460 rooms are required in that city in order to accommodate the pupils who will come under the operation of this Measure. For 1st April, 150 rooms are needed. Building operations have not yet been commenced in any one of these instances. Nothing at all has been done, so that if they have to meet, as the Corporation of Glasgow must meet, that demand which my right hon. Friend is placing upon them, then room accommodation for

these pupils is an absolute necessity. What is being done at the moment in order to meet the need for that accommodation?

Mr. Speaker: That would be perfectly in Order in Committee of Supply. I do not think it is in Order on 'the Second Reading of a consolidation Bill. It is purely a matter of administration.

Mr. Rankin: I will simply allow the matter, in legal terms, to rest, and hope that my right hon. Friend will be able, perhaps now or at an early date, to give some indication about the points with which I have tried to deal tonight.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next [Capt. Michael Stewart.]

Orders of the Day — CONTROL OF ENGAGEMENT ORDERS

9.44 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to move,
That the Control of Engagement (No. 2) Order, 1946 (S.R. &amp; O., 1946, No. 1278), dated 25th July, 1946, a copy of which was presented on 31st July be annulled.
With permission, I propose that it would be convenient for the House to discuss the additional Motion relating to Order No. 1417 which is also on the Order Paper, together with this Order, as the Order No 1417 amends No. 1278. The other Motion is as follows:
That the Control of Engagement (No. 3) Order, 1946 (S.R. &amp; O, 1946, No. 1417), dated 20th August, 1946, a copy of which was presented on 8th October, be annulled.
I hope that this Motion will be received with interest, and indeed with sympathy, in all parts of the House, having regard to its nature and its merits. I object very strongly to certain parts of these Orders. The parts to which I object have the effect—if I may first express it briefly, if not accurately—of providing that a person between the ages of 18 and 50 in the coal mining industry cannot engage himself for work outside that industry, except through a local office of the Ministry of Labour. To express it rather more precisely, and at rather greater length, these Orders provide that a person between the ages of 18 and 50 who is, or whose normal employment is, in the coal mining


industry cannot engage himself, or be engaged by an employer, for work outside that industry, except through a local office of the Ministry of Labour and National Service or through an employment agency that has been approved by the Ministry. These Orders, in effect, partly cancel the measure of freedom which was accorded through the revocation of the Essential Work Order which concerned the coal mining industry. That latter Order ceased to have effect on 1st September.
Under the Essential Work Order, a man was tied to his job unless he obtained permission of a National Service officer to work elsewhere. Under these Orders he is, instead, tied to the industry unless he is able to obtain employment outside the coal industry through the local office of the Ministry of Labour. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary, when he comes to reply, to tell us the nature of the instructions which have been given to the local offices of his Ministry with regard to the carrying out of their duties under these Orders. It is extremely difficult to assess the manpower requirements of the coal industry. I think it is made all the more difficult by the conflicting announcements of the Minister of Fuel and Power. On 26th September the Minister of Fuel and Power said at Nottingham:
We do not require to increase the labour force in the industry, which is now about 700,000, except as regards the repair of natural wastage. It is a completely erroneous conception that more men are required.
Then, on 8th October, he said:
There is a shortage of manpower and materials. We must recognise that the manpower in the coal industry is declining. Without emergency measures to repair the wastage and secure recruitment from new resources, this decline must continue.
We are also faced with the fact, which seems strange to many of us, that at present there are over 12,000 men unemployed in the coal industry. It is common ground to all of us that an increase in output is vital, and, in my submission, on the labour side, that increased output must depend upon the good will and energy brought to bear by those now in the industry and also by the extent to which it is possible to find new recruits for the industry. Will not attendance be better and will there not be a greater output per man-shift if the men no longer feel that they are tied to the industry?

So far as the Armed Forces are concerned, I think most of us agree that it is necessary to retain measures of compulsory service, but, surely, now, when a year or more has passed since the end of hostilities, it is high time that all men in civil life were free to offer their services where and when they please.
Then, take the aspect of recruitment to the industry. Who readily enters an industry when he knows that he will not have an entirely free right to withdraw from it? I think this must especially affect the coal industry. There may be many men who would be willing to give it a trial, but I think that many of them must be deterred when they know that, should they desire to leave, they can only obtain other employment through the local office of the Ministry of Labour. I think that claustrophobia is a thing not only induced by physical circumstances. I submit that this Order, because it restricts freedom, and because, assuming that it is designed to maintain manpower, it will tend to defeat its own object, should be annulled.
I should mention that, of course, I welcome the increased freedom given to pharmacists. There is only one other point and that arises on the Explanatory Memoranda to the Orders in question. The Explanatory Memorandum to Order No. 1417 says that the Order is made to correct an ambiguity. In my submission, it does nothing of the kind. The second Order, in fact, makes a far-reaching change of considerable importance, because, under the first Order, a coal miner would have been free to engage himself in agriculture. The amending Order No. 1417 stops him, and there is no question at all about ambiguity. Therefore, whereas the Explanatory Memorandum to the first Order was misleading in the sense that it was incomplete, the Explanatory Memorandum to the second Order is misleading because it is completely inaccurate.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): I beg to second the Motion.
It is regrettable although, perhaps, characteristic that a matter which affects the personal liberty of some 700,000 men should be discussed in this House in the complete absence of one section of the Liberal Party. I am perfectly certain that hon. Members opposite who represent mining constituencies are well aware of


the great importance to their constituencies of the subject matter of these two Orders inasmuch as they do, for better or worse, tie down to the industry every man at the moment engaged in it. Party considerations apart, that is obviously a matter of some considerable seriousness.
It was refreshing to observe in the Explanatory Memorandum to the second Order which the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) quoted that, for once, a Government Department has admitted ambiguity in these Orders. These Orders are studded with ambiguities, and I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary comes to reply he will invite the attention of the House to the particular ambiguity to which reference is made because, among the very considerable number included in the Order, it is, perhaps, a little difficult to be certain which is referred to. But the fact remains that, apart from admitting ambiguity, this is as I say a matter of very considerable seriousness. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell the House why, in time of peace and some 15 months after the end of the war, it is necessary to tie down every man inside a particular industry. Surely, it is a matter that can be discussed without heat, although it is one which calls for some explanation.
Orders having this tremendous effect have been issued under delegated legislation, and one of the objects of putting down this Motion tonight is to call for a clear and unambiguous explanation of this necessity. The hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield has already referred to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power in which he stated that there is adequate manpower in the industry at the present moment. Further, there is the consideration as to whether, in those circumstances, it is fair to the men in this industry to impose restrictions upon them from which most of their colleagues are at this moment free. That is a matter which should surely appeal to hon. Members opposite who represent mining constituencies. It certainly appeals to all hon. Members of this House who are interested in the liberty of the subject, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to satisfy the House that at this moment and in the light of the statement made by the Minister of Fuel and Power there is any justification whatsoever for

this grave infringement of the liberty of the mining community. It is surely a matter on which the House of Commons should be quite united that no restrictions of this sort should be imposed upon any man save for the gravest national reason, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell the House what those grave national reasons are.

Mr. Speaker: As both these Motions are being discussed at the same time, I propose to put the Question on the second one formally after this has been disposed of.

10.0 p.m.

Major Peter Roberts: If I can, I would like to assist the House on this point by bringing to bear a certain amount of practical knowledge upon it. I know, and the Parliamentary Secretary is also aware, that there are a certain number of misfits in the mining industry who have been held there under the Essential Work Order. Some were released when that Order came off. What has happened in practice in a lot of cases is that these "misfits" have at once either applied or been asked to go from the industry, but in some cases they have not been found other employment by the labour exchanges and, therefore, have been tied within the industry. From the management point of view, I think it is most unfair on the industry at this present stage that these people should be kept on the books. In point of fact, what happens is that they are touted round from pit to pit by the labour exchanges because they are still within the industry, and it is a very bad example to management when they are trying to get recruits.
I suggest to the Minister that to make the labour, exchanges the only channel of escape, so to speak, ties down a man instead of enabling him to exercise the freedom of trying to get other employment, and I am not satisfied that the labour exchanges are doing their utmost. I expect the Parliamentary Secretary will say that they are doing their best, but I would like him to look into that point very carefully before he answers. These men who are on the books are almost a drag upon the recruiting campaign of the management at the moment. I wish to stress that the management are having a very difficult time under the present organisation between now and the unknown vesting date which is still being


kept from us. I suggest that one of the easiest ways of dealing with this problem of what I might call "misfits," is to give free and wide play to these men to obtain employment by themselves if they can find a job, and secondly to assist the management by saying what the vesting date will be.

10.3 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): It is rather surprising that this Debate is taking place to annul this Order. I cannot say that it is due to Blackpool, because notice was given before the Blackpool conference was held, but on 24th July I made a statement to the House indicating the intention to produce this Order and stating the nature of relaxation of restrictions that would be applied to the mining industry in the future. A very long statement was made. It was listened to very carefully and immediately afterwards a Debate took place on the mining industry. From the Opposition Front Bench there were two speeches and not one of those speeches attacked this relaxation of the Essential Work Order on the mining industry. It was accepted on both sides of the House as a desirable step to take, one that was welcomed on both sides of the House and in all quarters of the industry, and in that sense I am surprised that tonight we have to face this Prayer to annul the Order. All that the two Orders do is to give effect to the statement and to the pledge given to this House, and which was accepted by this House.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the Parliamentary Secretary allow me to interrupt? Surely it is the fact that the relaxation of controls upon the mining industry was effected not by reason of these two Orders in respect of which a Prayer is moved tonight, but by reason of another Order, No. 1279, in respect of which there is no Prayer.

Mr. Ness Edwards: It is all part of the pledge and the intention— [Interruption.] I have the statement here, and if hon. Members on the other side will read the statement I made on 24th July they will see that this Order was envisaged in that statement. The House was told that the Essential Work Order would be cancelled and a new Order brought in to put a ring fence around the

industry, and this is the Order which puts the ring fence around the industry. As I say, the statement was made on 24th July. On 25th July the Order was made, and on 31st July it was made available to Members of this House.
Therefore, on the process of bringing in the Orders and placing them before hon. Members there cannot be any complaint with regard to the speed with which it was done. At the same time as this Order was brought in advantage was taken of laying this Order—and there is no objection to this—to free the pharmacists from control. I take it that is accepted by both sides of the House as something which is welcome, and to that extent this Order is accepted even by the hon. Gentlemen who have moved the Prayer. I take it they have no desire to push the pharmacists back to the position in which they would be controlled by the previous Order controlling them.
The next point was this. In the 1945 Control of Engagement Order there was a misprint that has not, until this point, been noted by any hon. Member of the House, namely, that "ZVM," which was supposed to refer to market gardening, was a misprint for "ZVN." That part of the Order which is now before the House deals with that point; it puts "N" instead of "M." Otherwise the market gardeners would be running away, and we should be having pressure from the other side of the House to get more people into agriculture. As was stated by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), the intention of this Order was to give to the workmen in the mining industry freedom to move from pit to pit. We gave to the employers in the industry the right to discharge a man from his employment in a given pit, but we went one step further and said that no man now engaged in mining shall be allowed to take a job outside the mining industry without the consent of the Ministry of Labour. I will deal with the misfits later on, but that was the intention. We thought that intention was completely embodied in the No. 2 Order, but on examination it was found that the form of amendment to the Control of Engagement Order had left a legal gap in this ring fence, and men in the mining industry would be free to leave the pit to go into agriculture, to go into market gardening, to join the police or to get


some administrative job. In the circumstances of the mining industry we felt it would be quite wrong to leave that gap there and defeat the undertaking given to this House, and accepted by both sides of the House without criticism. Therefore, we took steps by the No. 3 Order to close the gap.

Sir J. Mellor: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will not suggest that what he has described as a "legal gap" was an ambiguity? If so, was not the Explanatory Memorandum most misleading?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I thought the Black-pool vigour had gone, but apparently it has not. I will come to the point now. I quite agree that the use of the word "ambiguity" in the Explanatory Memorandum is entirely inadequate.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is ambiguous.

Mr. Ness Edwards: It is quite inadequate. What has been done in the No. 3 Order is to stop up the gap, to make good a deficiency, and I am satisfied that it would be far better that a word other than "ambiguity" should be used. I make that statement without qualification. I am quite sure there was no intention to mislead on the part of the Parliamentary draftsman when he put that word there. I am asked to justify the tying of men to the mining industry under this Control of Engagement Order. There have been quotations from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power. I saw nothing contradictory in the statements that were quoted. The Minister of Fuel and Power did not say he wanted to lose men from the mining industry. What he did say was that he must maintain his manpower; he must replace his wastage; and he did lay great emphasis on a point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ecclesall (Major Roberts), that we must try to get inside the industry that spirit of good will which would obtain the best results from those engaged in the industry. In the quotation given us I think the point was made about that.
The position is this. It is well known in the House that we must get all the coal we possibly can to see us through this winter, and it would be wrong on the part of the Government to release from the mining industry men of 20, 21 and 22 whilst, at the same time, we are calling up for the

Armed Forces from other industries men of that age. They could get into excepted industries if we did not have an iron ring round this industry, and in that way they would escape service in the Armed Forces. Whilst we have been calling up men of the age of 30, with regard to that category of men there could be no reason at all for releasing them from the obligation of rendering the most vital national service that can be rendered in the circumstances.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Before he leaves that point, will the Parliamentary Secretary say that I am right in suggesting that this Order ties to the industry not only men under 30 but men up to 51?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I did not think I had said anything to contradict the statement the hon. Gentleman has now made. It does tie them all. I accept that. I come to the next point. It is said there are 12,000 unemployed in the mining industry. But there are not 12,000 fit men unemployed. A substantial proportion of those men are men who are on the books of the companies. Many of them are on partial workmen's compensation and, therefore, drawing unemployment benefit and signing the unemployment register. In the South Wales coalfield there is a very substantial number—far too great a number—of men waiting for medical examination by the silicosis medical board, and one ought not to draw too readily wrong conclusions from this fact that there are 12,000 men registered as unemployed in the mining industry.
Then the point was raised about getting goodwill in the industry. There are misfits in the industry, and under this arrangement we can now handle those misfits to a very great degree. The young man who will not play his part in the industry, the young man who is absent frequently from his work, is warned. If he repeats his offence he is called up again, and the Ministry of Fuel and Power inform us if they decide that he is a misfit, and that that man ought to do his national service in another form. Many of those young men who are of military age are now being called to the armed forces, and in that way we think we are improving the atmosphere in the mining industry by taking away from the industry those who are not prepared to make the contribution that normal miners are prepared to make.

Major Roberts: Will the Parliamentary Secretary kindly allow me? Can he give us an assurance that where, at the present moment, we have men who are, we admit, misfits, being handed round from colliery to colliery, making managements very chary of employing them, the labour exchanges will go carefully into those cases to see if those men can render more useful service outside? I do not think the labour exchanges are doing that. They are trying to keep them in.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am afraid we must try to keep in the mining industry as many men as we reasonably can, that it will pay us to keep in. In regard to those who are obviously not going to fit in, there is a clear remedy. But then there is another set of cases; they are not whites, neither are they blacks, they are the greys, and that is a debatable field. You may get a man who has had a quarrel with a colliery manager, and he thinks he would be far better off, and would probably work much better, in another place. Sometimes there is no room in that other place and you have to move him on to the next, and encounter difficulties of that sort. But I am satisfied that once we get over the first effects of this Order we shall have a system which will enable us to fit men into the places where they can work comfortably, efficiently and regularly.
One or two other points were made, but I think I have covered the main portion of the ground. The position is this. In the circumstances which face the nation now we must try and keep in the mining industry all the willing miners we can keep, and the intention of this

Order is to see to it that we try to maintain the manpower there, so that we may get the best possible results. I should like to see us in the position of abolishing control altogether, but we have to decide which comes first. Shall it be the national interest, or shall it be a sectional interest? The same thing applies to the men who are now being called up for National Service. If we have regard purely to their interests, we shall leave them where they are, but this House has decided that they must be called up. That is the question we have to decide, between, on the one hand, the broad national interest, and on the other the rights of the individual section. I would suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that if this Order is annulled they enforce control upon the farmers and leave the market gardeners free. We must maintain the manpower in the mining industry, and these steps have had the approval of both sides of the industry. What has been done has been done after negotiations with the National Union of Mineworkers and the Coal Owners' Association. Now, it is the National Coal Board which will take over their functions. Having carried out what they regard as the best thing, we think the House should reject this Prayer, and at the same time congratulate the Government for carrying out so clearly the undertakings given on 24th July.

Question put,
That the Control of Engagement (No. 2) Order, 1946 (S.R. &amp; O., 1946, No. 1278), dated 25th July 1946, a copy of which was presented on 31st July, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes, 46; Noes, 252.

Division No. 284.
AYES.
[10.17 p.m


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Scott, Lord W.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Linstead, H. N.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Bowen, R.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Byers, Frank
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Snadden, W. M.


Challen, C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Spence, H. R.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Medlicott, F.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Drayson, G. B.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Turton, R. H.


Drewe, C.
Mullan, Lt. C. H.
Wadsworth, G.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Raikes, H. V.
York, C.


Hope, Lord J.
Ramsay, Maj. S.



Howard, Hon. A.
Renton, D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Sir John Mellor and


Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Mr. Boyd Carpenter.


Keeling, E. H.
Sanderson, Sir F.





NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)


Adams, W. T.(Hammersmith, South)
Alpass, J. H.
Austin, H. L.


Allen, A. C.(Bosworth)
Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Awbery, S. S.




Ayles, W. H.
Grey, C. F.
Randall, H. E.


Bacon, Miss A.
Grierson, E.
Ranger, J.


Baird, J.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Rankin, J.


Balfour, A
Haire, Flt-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Barstow, P. G.
Hale, Leslie
Reeves, J.


Barton, C.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Battley, J. R.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Richards, R.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Haworth, J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Benson, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Berry, H.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Bing, G. H. C.
Herbison, Miss M.
Scollan, T.


Binns, J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hobson, C. R
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Blyton, W. R.
Holman, P.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Boardman, H.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Hoy, J.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hubbard, T.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Simmons, C. J.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Skinnard, F. W.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Janner, B.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Jay, D. P. T.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Brown, George (Belper)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Buchanan, G.
John, W.
Solley, L. J.


Burden, T. W.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Sorensen, R. W.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Sparks, J. A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Stamford, W.


Chamberlain, R. A
Keenan, W.
Steele, T.


Champion, A. J.
Kenyon, C.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Chater, D.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Stross, Dr. B.


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Lavers, S.
Stubbs, A. E.


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Summerskill, Dr Edith


Cocks, F. S.
Leslie, J. R.
Swingier S.


Coldrick, W.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Symonds, A. L.


Collick, P.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Collindridge, F.
Lipson, D. L.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Collins, V. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Logan, D. G.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Comyns, Dr. L.
McAdam, W.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Cook, T. F.
McAllister, G.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thurtle, E.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Mack, J. D.
Tiffany, S.


Corlett, Dr. J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Timmons, J.


Corvedale, Viscount
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Tolley, L.


Crawley, A.
McKinlay, A S.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Daggar, G.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Daines, P.
McLeavy, F.
Usborne, Henry


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Walkden, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Deer, G.
Mathers, G.
Warbey, W. N.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Medland, H. M.
Watkins, T. E.


Diamond, J.
Messer, F.
Watson, W. M.


Dobbie, W.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Weitzman, D.


Donovan, T.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Monslow, W.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Moody, A. S.
West, D. G.


Durbin, E. F. M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Edelman, M.
Morley, R.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)




White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Mort, D. L.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Murray, J. D.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Nally, W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Ewart, R.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Fairhurst, F.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Farthing, W. J.
Noel-Buxton, Lady.
Willis, E.


Follick, M.
Oliver, G. H.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Foot, M. M.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Woodburn, A.


Forman, J. C.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wyatt, E.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Parker, J.
Yates, V. F.


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gibson, C. W.
Pearson A.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Gilzean, A.
Perrins, W.
Zilliacus, K.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Piratin, P.



Gooch, E. G.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Goodrich, H. E.
Proctor, W. T.
Captain Michael Stewart and


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Pryde, D. J.
Mr. Popplewell.


Grenfell, D. R.
Pursey, Cmdr. H



Question put, and agreed to.

Sir J. Mellon: I beg to move,
That the Control of Engagement (No. 3) Order, 1946 (S.R. &amp; O., 1946, No. 1417), dated 20th August 1946, a copy of which was presented on 8th October, be annulled.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to second the Motion.

Question put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — AIR RAID SIRENS (USE AS FIRE ALARMS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. R J. Taylor.]

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Medlicott: I am very glad to have this opportunity, so early after the reassembly of the House, of raising a matter which is causing a great deal of concern in various parts of the country. I refer to the continued use in various districts of the air raid warning sirens. It is a matter of considerable surprise to many people that these sirens are in use at all, and we are entitled to ask how this has come about.
The siren was designed as a general warning, and one would imagine that its use would be confined to cases of threatened danger to the community as a whole, such as an impending flood or some other form of threat which needed communal action. In fact, these air raid sirens are being used merely for the purpose of summoning from their homes a handful of part-time firemen, with the result that, in the districts where this takes place, the entire community is startled in order that half a dozen or so men can be told there is a fire. During the war the wailing and moaning of the air raid sirens was universally regarded as one of our greatest inflictions. There was no single weapon of war which caused greater anxiety to certain classes of people, and in the raided areas everybody found the noise extremely disturbing. There were many people who said they found even the noise of the bombs less disturbing than that of the preliminary warnings which were given by these sirens.
The Minister in his reply will probably say that it is not the "warning" sound which is now given, but the "Raiders passed" signal. It seems to me an extraordinary situation that, fifteen months after the end of the war, we should have the "Raiders passed" signal inflicted on us. One hopes they

have passed a long time ago. But it is the structure of the sirens to which one takes such exception and the curious mournful tone which this instrument was expressly designed to produce. In any event, it was quite common during the war for people to ask, "Was that the 'warning,' or was it the 'All clear?'" The instrument itself, no matter what sort of noise it made, brought great disquiet and anxiety. Those who are in charge of the National Fire Service claim that the siren is the most effective means of summoning the firemen to their duties, and I can well imagine that to be the case. But surely they have some duty to regard the effect upon the community at large? We can all think of expedients which would be extremely useful in our own businesses and affairs, if we were allowed to use them without any regard to their effect upon our fellow citizens.
This brings me to a point of principle. One wonders why it is that people in official positions are able to do things which, if done by private citizens, would be punishable. If any private citizen were to buy one of these sirens, and use it for his own purposes, he would very speedily be prosecuted for creating a public nuisance, or for doing an act calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. Why is it, then, that an official should be put in a position above the law, so that he is able to do something which would be regarded as a public nuisance if done by anyone else?
The fact is that on this quite simple matter the Home Office have fallen down very badly. The Home Secretary is noted, and rightly noted, for his judicial qualities, but it is only too often the case that people with judicial qualities have very little imagination, and very little imagination has been shown by the Home Secretary, in considering the effect of these sirens upon children, upon invalids, and upon not only the aged, but the middle aged. They all find these noises extremely disturbing. Secondly, the Home Secretary has shown an entire lack of imagination in not trying to devise a more effective and more reasonable method of summoning firemen to their duties. I ask the Minister who is to reply what real effort has been made to try to find some more sensible means of warning firemen that they are needed.
I wish to make two suggestions. These warnings can be individual in character—


that is, by means of the telephone, or some other system giving direct contact with the firemen themselves. It has, I believe, been said by the Home Secretary. in answer to Questions in the House, that the telephone would not be adequate because the men would not always be at home. We know that quite well, but the average part-time fireman-is a steady type of man. He does not flit from home to home or from job to job. It would be perfectly feasible to connect him up by telephone, or by a simple electric bell, so that the message could be got to him in that way. During the night time he will generally be at home; during the day time he could be connected up at his work; and during the remaining three hours he is probably at the pictures or some other place of relaxation where he would not hear the siren anyhow. If however, the system of personal warning is rejected, there is surely some better method of general alarm.
In this connection I return to the point that it is the particular note of the siren which is found so objectionable. Surely it is possible for the Home Office to get into touch with those people who are experts in the matter of sound amplification and to do something better than they have done up to the present time. We live in an age when sound amplification has reached heights or depths previously undreamed of. It should be perfectly possible to devise a type of fire hooter which would have a new note altogether. I do not know why it is that in the past fire hooters have always been pitched in a mournful minor key. I hope that in future the possibility of setting these alarms in a major key will be considered. We do not want to make a song about our fires, but there is no reason why the firemen should not be sped on their way cheerfully. It would be very fitting if the hooter could be pitched in the note of B sharp.
The Home Secretary really must think again upon this matter. We hear a great deal about the inertia which settles down upon Whitehall, but this is the sort of problem which, during the war, the Departments used to settle every day before breakfast. Surely, it is not beyond the wit of those in authority to devise some better means. The Urban District Councils Association raised this matter and made a spirited protest at their conference in June. In Bognor there were cases

where children dived frightened under the desks when they first heard this fire warning, and it was only after a six months' battle that the local authorities were able to get the siren removed. Medical officers of health have also testified as to the undesirable effects of this instrument in its present form.
I am also told by my colleagues that there are instances where sirens have been sold by the authorities to factories and are used in industry for various warning purposes. We realise that the Government have been extremely short of most commodities, but it seems to me a little hard that, in an endeavour to have something to sell, they should have to dispose of surplus air raid sirens. I do ask that the Home Secretary should devise some more practical method of bringing firemen to their duties and that in the meantime he should make an Order which would have the immediate effect of stopping the further use of this caterwauling instrument, which has such bitter memories for the people of this generation.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Keenan: I should like in a few words to stress what has already been said, because the hon. Gentleman who raised this matter has not exhausted all that there is to be said about the N.F.S. use of this instrument. It is not used merely for the purpose of summoning members from rural areas for part time brigades. In Liverpool the N.F.S. use it in the streets instead of the bell used formerly. The effect on people in areas like Liverpool, which were blitzed, is to startle and disturb. I have not heard the siren used for industrial purposes in the town of Luton where I live, although I am told that at least one firm is using it, but I did hear it used in Liverpool recently by an industrial firm. I hope that in view of the horror the sound has for our people and the awful effect it has upon them, because of their very unpleasant war recollections, the Home Secretary will take notice of what has been said tonight about the use of the siren, not only by the N.F.S. but for industrial purposes, and will see that it is abolished.

10.42 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver): Very appropriate questions have been asked to-


night about the use of air raid sirens for the purposes of fire brigade work and I think it only right to say that there is general agreement about the desirability of changing the note which is sounded by these sirens I may say at once that the Home Office has been taking steps to see whether some improvement cannot be made in the present use of these instruments and a more pleasant sound emitted, so that war memories shall not be revived by their use. When the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Medlicott) says that he would like to know the reason why they are used I think I should tell him this. Since March, 1944, the full-time strength of the Fire Service has been reduced enormously and more than three-quarters of the firemen today are serving in a part-time capacity. It is unnecessary to tell an assembly of this description that part-time firemen work in all sorts of industries and in all sorts of places—on the roads, in the factories, in the workshops, and in the quarries—and, therefore, it is necessary when there are so many part-time firemen, to have an effective and efficient means of giving warning when a fire has broken out.
I have taken the trouble since the hon. Member put this matter down for discussion to ascertain the means whereby warning was given to part-time firemen, before the war. It appears that there were several devices in operation, one of them the siren; steam, compressed air, whistles or buzzers, call-bells in the part-time firemen's premises, maroons, ringing bells hanging at fire stations or other premises —including church bells—runners and telephone calls, and fire calls received centrally and passed on to the men. It is estimated from records at the Home Office that something like 200 or 300 sirens were in use before the war to call part-time firemen to fires. The sirens were taken over during the war, and were adapted for war purposes. Now they have reverted to their original purpose. It is therefore erroneous to say that sirens were not in operation before the war.

Mr. Medlicott: I did not, in fact, say that. I called attention to the effect of using the sirens in view of the changed circumstances brought about by the war, and I urged that we should get right away from them because of their association with air raids.

Mr. Oliver: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. We are desirous of changing the tone, and steps have been taken to achieve the object which the hon. Member has in mind. The air raid warning system is used because it is the most effective method we have for the purpose, but if we could find something equally effective we should be glad to do so. Call bells in the homes of part-time firemen are of limited application. The fireman is usually at work during the day, and in the evening he may go to an entertainment. The call bell can apply only when there is reasonable expectation that he will be at home, at something like 10.30 or 11 o'clock. There is as much objection to a maroon explosion as there is to a siren. The ringing of a bell in the old-fashioned way has been tried during the day, but it audibility is very limited. I am sure it would not fulfil the requirements, particularly having regard to the fact that when these fire services go back to the local authorities, the units of administration will be considerably-larger than they were before the war. The efficiency of the siren has, of course, been mentioned time and time again. I ought to read to the House a letter which appeared in the Press about the use of the siren for the purpose of calling part-time firemen together. It is headed "Well Done, N.F.S." and is as follows:
Sir, May I congratulate the part-time National Fire Service in this area? I heard the wailing of the siren in the quiet village inn. Remembering the old saying that fire brigades need a week's notice to attend a fire. I took out my watch. To my amazement as the siren still wailed, eight men appeared at the fire appliance shed at the rear of the inn and were away in 2 minutes 35 seconds to the cottage fire. Good show, you men of the ladders. Yours sincerely, A CITY MAN.
The House will see that the use of the siren, according to this correspondent, was effective in the sense that in 2 minutes 35 seconds the men had been gathered together and were off on their job. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) I shall have the matter looked into—

Mr. Keenan: We want it stopped.

Mr. Oliver: We will do our best. It is necessary first to make inquiries, but the sirens to which we were referring were fixtures. If any new ideas emerge


when the speeches made tonight are examined, the House may rest assured that the Home Secretary will be only too glad to do what he can to make use of them. It would be useless for me to say that we can dispense with sirens, but in

the use of sirens we shall try to make them as harmonious as possible.

Adjourned accordingly at Eight minutes to Eleven o'Clock.